Genetics: Taking the God out of "Look We Have a Baby!"
Aristotle is credited with having first "come up" with genetics. It's important to say that this was a theory for the most part, since Aristotle did not have the necessary tools to test it out to completely.
Before, there had been philosophers who had thought that when something was, it was done with God's intent (in some cases with the Gods' intent) to happen. A baby bird would hatch out of an egg because that was the will of the deities.
Before, there had been philosophers who had thought that when something was, it was done with God's intent (in some cases with the Gods' intent) to happen. A baby bird would hatch out of an egg because that was the will of the deities.
Praise the gods.
These same philosophers also thought that the creatures existed within the mother's womb, exactly the same, but just smaller, like the mini giraffe in the Geico commercial.
However, Aristotle had sense to him. He argued that things developed "toward a normal end," meaning that there was no higher purpose or divine intervention- that development was something that happened in order to get to the final end product.
Aristotle also argued how things were passed down, from one generation to the next as he stated that "man begets man." Aristotle made the connection of the biological line that all species have to follow: frogs can't give birth to ducks, basically. This, too, is uncannily familiar to modern genetics. And Aristotle gets even more accurate with his scientific theory since he was able to explain how a woman got pregnant.
In his writing Generation of Animals, Aristotle explained how the sperm gave form ('form' meaning what something was) to the female counterpart, and with good luck, the fertilized egg grows and becomes it's adult stage (of whatever the creature happens to be).
Opposition was had to his theory, the first being that:
The second opposition was:
Aristotle also countered this with his "potential form" note: meaning that everything has potential, the "highest potential being actuality." Basically, sperm could be a man, it has potential for that, but it itself is not a man.
However, Aristotle had sense to him. He argued that things developed "toward a normal end," meaning that there was no higher purpose or divine intervention- that development was something that happened in order to get to the final end product.
Aristotle also argued how things were passed down, from one generation to the next as he stated that "man begets man." Aristotle made the connection of the biological line that all species have to follow: frogs can't give birth to ducks, basically. This, too, is uncannily familiar to modern genetics. And Aristotle gets even more accurate with his scientific theory since he was able to explain how a woman got pregnant.
In his writing Generation of Animals, Aristotle explained how the sperm gave form ('form' meaning what something was) to the female counterpart, and with good luck, the fertilized egg grows and becomes it's adult stage (of whatever the creature happens to be).
Opposition was had to his theory, the first being that:
- the sperm was not a man, literally, so how could man beget a man?
The second opposition was:
- since there is a part of man in sperm, doesn't that make sperm a type of "man"?
Aristotle also countered this with his "potential form" note: meaning that everything has potential, the "highest potential being actuality." Basically, sperm could be a man, it has potential for that, but it itself is not a man.
Infertility, and I'm Not Talking About the Soil...
Awkward I know I'm sorry. Moving on.
ANYHOW. We find ourselves back to Aristotle and his book-length work Generation of Animals. Now, firstly, we have to say this: some of his hypothesis about sperm and such, was wrong. However, he did many valid points that are still very true to this day. Lets get this over with.
Aristotle postulated that semen, came a) from both men and women, and b) BUT he did not believe that it came from the whole body. (Um.)
Regarding the first point:
Now, there are two "types" of semen, or so thought Aristotle. He correctly defined semen, noting how it had the ability to bring forth "generations" if given with the female counterpart. However, he had mistakenly thought that catamenia was the female equivalent. He had dubbed it the "'seed' of the woman." (Um.) Now, since both parents now have "semen" Aristotle inferred that it came from both parents.
As for the second point:
Hippocratic doctors thought that semen came from the whole body, and this term is now called "pangenisis" by modern doctors. The reason they believed that was because he noticed how certain characteristics that originated from parent were thrust upon the child ("if a parent has a scar, then the children are born with a mark in the same place"), and that since everything from one human body originated from it's parents' counterpart, it must have come from every place (how else would you get your mothers eyes?). (Um.)
However, Aristotle did not believe this, and stated that "semen is not secreted from all the parts".
Now that the technical stuff is out of the way:
Aristotle not only predict why men were sterile, but also women. However, he noted what is now termed the menstrual cycle. He wrote about women could not conceive a child, only after "the cleansing". (Um.)
Regarding men, he wrote how men or women with excess fat were less sterile, while men or women with less fat were more sterile. This goes back to, as he mentions, to evolution, in where having more fat means you are healthier, while being skinny makes you the "runt of the litter". Thus, knowing that coupling with a skinny being will be less often fr them, nature makes up for it by having them be way more fertile in order to be able to pass off their lineage. Rounding off the list, he concludes how another reason for infertility is that the corresponding parts for coupling were harmed, or marred in the womb, or when during the process.
ANYHOW. We find ourselves back to Aristotle and his book-length work Generation of Animals. Now, firstly, we have to say this: some of his hypothesis about sperm and such, was wrong. However, he did many valid points that are still very true to this day. Lets get this over with.
Aristotle postulated that semen, came a) from both men and women, and b) BUT he did not believe that it came from the whole body. (Um.)
Regarding the first point:
Now, there are two "types" of semen, or so thought Aristotle. He correctly defined semen, noting how it had the ability to bring forth "generations" if given with the female counterpart. However, he had mistakenly thought that catamenia was the female equivalent. He had dubbed it the "'seed' of the woman." (Um.) Now, since both parents now have "semen" Aristotle inferred that it came from both parents.
As for the second point:
Hippocratic doctors thought that semen came from the whole body, and this term is now called "pangenisis" by modern doctors. The reason they believed that was because he noticed how certain characteristics that originated from parent were thrust upon the child ("if a parent has a scar, then the children are born with a mark in the same place"), and that since everything from one human body originated from it's parents' counterpart, it must have come from every place (how else would you get your mothers eyes?). (Um.)
However, Aristotle did not believe this, and stated that "semen is not secreted from all the parts".
Now that the technical stuff is out of the way:
Aristotle not only predict why men were sterile, but also women. However, he noted what is now termed the menstrual cycle. He wrote about women could not conceive a child, only after "the cleansing". (Um.)
Regarding men, he wrote how men or women with excess fat were less sterile, while men or women with less fat were more sterile. This goes back to, as he mentions, to evolution, in where having more fat means you are healthier, while being skinny makes you the "runt of the litter". Thus, knowing that coupling with a skinny being will be less often fr them, nature makes up for it by having them be way more fertile in order to be able to pass off their lineage. Rounding off the list, he concludes how another reason for infertility is that the corresponding parts for coupling were harmed, or marred in the womb, or when during the process.