The way in which we have understood the mechanism of embryo growth and development has gradually changed over the course of history with advancements in science and technology. Two theories which were believed in previous time periods were the Hippocratic theories and the theory of ovist preformationism. The Preformation’s and Hippocratic theories were used in the late seventeenth to early eighteenth centuries to explain how organisms develop from embryos as well as how characteristics are transferred from parent to offspring. Both theories explained these mechanisms partially correct with some explanations still see to be true today. On the other hand both theories also contained major errors which made them inconsistent with each other so
…show more content…
Beginning with the theory of ovist preformation, it gives a far better explanation as to how a fetus grows and develops but does not explain how inheritance between parent and offspring occurs. An example of this is the inability for the theory to explain how a mule can be produced from the mating of a mare and a donkey (Maupertuis 1745: 172). In contrast, The Hippocratic theories are opposite to the ovist theories in the context of advantages and disadvantages. This is because the Hippocratic theories give a much better explanation of the process of inheritance and how it occurs which is a major disadvantage of the ovist theories. Alternatively, the major disadvantage of the Hippocratic theories was that it did not explain how development and growth of the fetus occurred, which was one of the major advantages of the ovist preformation theories. The is exemplified by the fact that the Hippocratic theories could not explain how freshwater polyps could regenerate (Trembley 1744: 148). The other advantage that the ovist preformation theory held of the Hippocratic theories was that it was compatible with religion. The Hippocratic theories did not adhere with the Biblical idea of creation so it was a less favourable idea in concern with the …show more content…
According to Thomas Kuhn a paradigms, in relation to science, were, “universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model problems and solutions for a community of practitioners (Kuhn p10).” By using this definition it can be determined that both theories of development were each part of their own paradigm as they were both universally recognised at some point and both provided answers to how development worked. These two paradigms can be seen as distinct as they both do not share common ground in their explanation of development as they a both suggested vastly different explanations which are incompatible with each other. This situation is an example of Kuhn’s notion of incommensurability which describes the inability for two paradigms to adhere to one another. As Hippocratic theories gave sound explanation of genetic inheritance and theories of preformationism gave sound explanation of growth and development there was no adherence between the two. This is because they did not share any common valid explanations which lead them to be interpreted as two distinct paradigms. In the preceding time period Charles Darwin was able to combine the two competing theories of Hippocrates and Preformation to create clearer understanding
Beginning with the theory of ovist preformation, it gives a far better explanation as to how a fetus grows and develops but does not explain how inheritance between parent and offspring occurs. An example of this is the inability for the theory to explain how a mule can be produced from the mating of a mare and a donkey (Maupertuis 1745: 172). In contrast, The Hippocratic theories are opposite to the ovist theories in the context of advantages and disadvantages. This is because the Hippocratic theories give a much better explanation of the process of inheritance and how it occurs which is a major disadvantage of the ovist theories. Alternatively, the major disadvantage of the Hippocratic theories was that it did not explain how development and growth of the fetus occurred, which was one of the major advantages of the ovist preformation theories. The is exemplified by the fact that the Hippocratic theories could not explain how freshwater polyps could regenerate (Trembley 1744: 148). The other advantage that the ovist preformation theory held of the Hippocratic theories was that it was compatible with religion. The Hippocratic theories did not adhere with the Biblical idea of creation so it was a less favourable idea in concern with the …show more content…
According to Thomas Kuhn a paradigms, in relation to science, were, “universally recognized scientific achievements that, for a time, provide model problems and solutions for a community of practitioners (Kuhn p10).” By using this definition it can be determined that both theories of development were each part of their own paradigm as they were both universally recognised at some point and both provided answers to how development worked. These two paradigms can be seen as distinct as they both do not share common ground in their explanation of development as they a both suggested vastly different explanations which are incompatible with each other. This situation is an example of Kuhn’s notion of incommensurability which describes the inability for two paradigms to adhere to one another. As Hippocratic theories gave sound explanation of genetic inheritance and theories of preformationism gave sound explanation of growth and development there was no adherence between the two. This is because they did not share any common valid explanations which lead them to be interpreted as two distinct paradigms. In the preceding time period Charles Darwin was able to combine the two competing theories of Hippocrates and Preformation to create clearer understanding