Why didn't Darwin discover Mendel's laws?

Mendel and Darwin

Evolution by natural selection is an explicitly genetic theory. Darwin recognized that a working theory of inheritance was central to his theory and spent much of his scientific life seeking one. The seeds of his attempt to fill this gap, his “provisional hypothesis” of pangenesis, appear in his notebooks when he was first formulating his evolutionary ideas. Darwin, in short, desperately needed Mendel. In this paper, we set Mendel’s work in the context of experimental biology and animal/plant breeding of the period and review both the well-known story of possible contact between Mendel and Darwin and the actual contact between their ideas after their deaths. Mendel’s contributions to evolutionary biology were fortuitous. Regardless, it is Mendel’s work that completed Darwin’s theory. The modern theory based on the marriage between Mendel’s and Darwin’s ideas as forged most comprehensively by R. A. Fisher is both Darwin’s achievement and Mendel’s.

Developmental genetics with model organisms

In Darwin's and Mendel's times, researchers investigated a wealth of organisms, chosen to solve particular problems for which they seemed especially well suited. Later, a focus on a few organisms, which are accessible to systematic genetic investigations, resulted in larger repertoires of methods and applications in these few species. Genetic animal model organisms with large research communities are the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, the fly Drosophila melanogaster, the zebrafish Danio rerio, and the mouse Mus musculus. Due to their specific strengths, these model organisms have their strongest impacts in rather different areas of biology. C. elegans is unbeatable in the analysis of cell-to-cell contacts by saturation mutagenesis, as worms can be grown very fast in very high numbers. In Drosophila, a rich pattern is generated in the embryo as well as in adults that is used to unravel the underlying mechanisms of morphogenesis. The transparent larvae of zebrafish are uniquely suited to study organ development in a vertebrate, and the superb versatility of reverse genetics in the mouse made it the model organism to study human physiology and diseases. The combination of these models allows the in-depth genetic analysis of many fundamental biological processes using a plethora of different methods, finally providing many specific approaches to combat human diseases. The plant model Arabidopsis thaliana provides an understanding of many aspects of plant biology that might ultimately be useful for breeding crops.

The deceptive simplicity of mendelian genetics

Gregor Mendel meticulously uncovered the genetic basis of heredity in work that transformed the science of biology. But does the alluring simplicity of Mendel’s laws sometimes obscure the true complexity of genetics?

Genetics Matters: Voyaging from the Past into the Future of Humanity and Sustainability

The understanding of how genetic information may be inherited through generations was established by Gregor Mendel in the 1860s when he developed the fundamental principles of inheritance. The science of genetics, however, began to flourish only during the mid-1940s when DNA was identified as the carrier of genetic information. The world has since then witnessed rapid development of genetic technologies, with the latest being genome-editing tools, which have revolutionized fields from medicine to agriculture. This review walks through the historical timeline of genetics research and deliberates how this discipline might furnish a sustainable future for humanity.

Limits of imagination: the 150th Anniversary of Mendel's Laws, and why Mendel failed to see the importance of his discovery for Darwin's theory of evolution

Mendel is credited for discovering Laws of Heredity, but his work has come under criticism on three grounds: for possible falsification of data to fit his expectations, for getting undue credit for the laws of heredity without having ideas of segregation and independent assortment, and for being interested in the development of hybrids rather than in the laws of heredity. I present a brief review of these criticisms and conclude that Mendel deserved to be called the father of genetics even if he may not, and most likely did not, have clear ideas of segregation and particulate determiners as we know them now. I argue that neither Mendel understood the evolutionary significance of his findings for the problem of genetic variation, nor would Darwin have understood their significance had he read Mendel's paper. I argue that the limits to imagination, in both cases, came from their mental framework being shaped by existing paradigms-blending inheritance in the case of Darwin, hybrid development in the case of Mendel. Like Einstein, Darwin's natural selection was deterministic; like Niels Bohr, Mendel's Laws were probabilistic-based on random segregation of trait-determining "factors". Unlike Einstein who understood quantum mechanics, Darwin would have been at a loss with Mendel's paper with no guide to turn to. Geniuses in their imaginations are like heat-seeking missiles locked-in with their targets of deep interests and they generally see things in one dimension only. Imagination has limits; unaided imagination is like a bird without wings--it goes nowhere.

Charles Darwin's mitochondria

Charles Darwin's long-term illness has been the subject of much speculation. His numerous symptoms have led to conclusions that his illness was essentially psychogenic in nature. These diagnoses have never been fully convincing, however, particularly in regard to the proposed underlying psychological background causes of the illness. Similarly, two proposed somatic causes of illness, Chagas disease and arsenic poisoning, lack credibility and appear inconsistent with the lifetime history of the illness. Other physical explanations are simply too incomplete to explain the range of symptoms. Here, a very different sort of explanation will be offered. We now know that mitochondrial mutations producing impaired mitochondrial function may result in a wide range of differing symptoms, including symptoms thought to be primarily psychological. Examination of Darwin's maternal family history supports the contention that his illness was mitochondrial in nature; his mother and one maternal uncle had strange illnesses and the youngest maternal sibling died of an infirmity with symptoms characteristic of mitochondrial encephalomyopathy, lactic acidosis, and stroke-like episodes (MELAS syndrome), a condition rooted in mitochondrial dysfunction. Darwin's own symptoms are described here and are in accord with the hypothesis that he had the mtDNA mutation commonly associated with the MELAS syndrome.

Darwin and genetics

Darwin's theory of natural selection lacked an adequate account of inheritance, making it logically incomplete. We review the interaction between evolution and genetics, showing how, unlike Mendel, Darwin's lack of a model of the mechanism of inheritance left him unable to interpret his own data that showed Mendelian ratios, even though he shared with Mendel a more mathematical and probabilistic outlook than most biologists of his time. Darwin's own "pangenesis" model provided a mechanism for generating ample variability on which selection could act. It involved, however, the inheritance of characters acquired during an organism's life, which Darwin himself knew could not explain some evolutionary situations. Once the particulate basis of genetics was understood, it was seen to allow variation to be passed intact to new generations, and evolution could then be understood as a process of changes in the frequencies of stable variants. Evolutionary genetics subsequently developed as a central part of biology. Darwinian principles now play a greater role in biology than ever before, which we illustrate with some examples of studies of natural selection that use DNA sequence data and with some recent advances in answering questions first asked by Darwin.

Darwin as a plant scientist: a Southern Hemisphere perspective

Events around the world this year celebrate the bicentenary of the birth of Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and the sesquicentenary of publication of his most important work, The Origin of Species (Darwin 1859). The associated plethora of books and papers now appearing to commemorate Darwin's work continue the traditional emphasis on his zoological and geological contributions. There has been some recent attention directed towards Darwin's relatively unsung but significant accomplishments as a botanist. Here, we bring together a review of Darwin's botanical discoveries and experiments and relevant aspects of his geological investigations, with a focus on the Southern Hemisphere. This is a relatively unexplored aspect of Darwin's contributions that yields some new insights meriting future research.