# What were the precursors and alternatives to the theory of evolution?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-precursors-and-alternatives-to-the-theory-of-evolution/612636>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [February 12, 2012, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-precursors-and-alternatives-to-the-theory-of-evolution/612636 "2012-02-12T22:27:03Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\
**Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-precursors-and-alternatives-to-the-theory-of-evolution/612636/21 "2012-02-13T08:10:26Z")

</div>

> [@Darth\_Ayebaw](#):
>
> While not perfect, nor widely known, I believe the work of Gregor Mendel could have provided some level of support.

Not really. _The Origin of Species_ was published in 1859. Mendel’s paper appeared in 1866. Once the _Origin_ appeared, although inheritance of acquired characteristics hung around for a bit (not being a real threat to the fundamentals of Darwinism) Lamarckism in general was no longer a contender. It just did not explain the crucial facts (see post #18, above). Darwin and his allies did not need Mendel to refute Lamark.

Mendel’s importance has been much overrated, anyway. His vicissitudes make a neat story that served as a useful rhetorical trope for the real founders of genetics in the early 20th century. It is cool to have an unjustly neglected intellectual precursor. It helps to get you proper respect. That is the most of it, really.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-were-the-precursors-and-alternatives-to-the-theory-of-evolution/612636.md?page=1)