Abstracts of Term Papers
Duncan Chapman
The Continuing Development of Ethical Medical
Practice Based on Scientific Discoveries and Cultural Milieu: From Athens to
Ann Arbor.
My thesis in
this paper is that scientific advancements and ethical codes are needed to
correctly create modes of health care delivery. There is a power struggle
between science and ethics within any society, and balance is needed for either
to advance in a significant way. Scientific achievements in medicine make the
most positive impact when they are in agreement with medical ethics and gain
cultural acceptance. The ancient Greek practice of medicine is more similar to
ours than any other civilization. In this paper I compare the ethics and
medicine in ancient Greece to modern ethics with modern medicine. There are
many influences which make up medical ethics, that I discuss in my paper,
including: the relationship between ethics and science (in our society), the
relationship between religion and medical ethics, establishment of ethical
codes from Hippocrates, scientific advancements, improvements in communication,
pharmacology and culture morality, political changes, the idea of virtues from
Galen, and regulation of physicians.
Ethics and
medical practice in ancient Greece were most heavily influenced by Hippocrates
and Galen. To show how modern ethics and medicine relate to the practice in
ancient Greece I decided to have them time travel to Ann Arbor. During the
process they both acquire colds and check into a local hospital. From their
encounter they reflect on how our health care system compares to their ethical
codes and views of medicine. I felt this would be a unique way to show how the
two major contributors to Greek medicine and ethics would view our practice of
medicine, in the wake of corporate takeover and scientific advancements. In a
sense current medical practices result from the struggle between scientific
discoveries and their acceptance in contemporary society.
Erica Chernick Chinese Science
My term paper concentrates on the significant Chinese scientific, mathematical and technological developments. One of the main points of my
paper is that Chinese developments have served as an important foundation upon
which future scientific progress, both in China and abroad, has been made. I discuss at great length important Chinese scientific discoveries and
innovations, and particularly emphasize four revolutionary Chinese
technologies: printing, paper making, gunpowder and the magnetic compass. I
wrote about the significance of these inventions and their relative importance
in the context of the evolution of scientific thought. I also discuss the
mathematical and scientific strengths that the Chinese people have exhibited
over several centuries, and I mention the accomplishments of a few noteworthy
Chinese mathematicians, such as Kao and Chen-Heng. I also mention contemporary
Chinese scientists whose recent scientific and technological accomplishments
have earned them international recognition. These scientists and researchers
include Chen Ning Yang and Tsung Dao Lee. My paper emphasizes the importance
of Chinese contributions, not only to the evolution of scientific thought, but
also to the lives we lead today. Modern agricultural methods, paper money,
decimal-based mathematics and shipping, among other things, are such things
that we tend to take for granted today but were made possible by the
extraordinary developments of the Chinese. I also make the point in my paper
that the exceptional scientific advances of the Chinese people did not only
take place thousands of years ago; rather, the Chinese people continue to be
exert their mathematical and scientific strengths, and the recent scientific
accomplishments of prominent Chinese scientists and researchers have not, and
should not, be overlooked. I mention a few examples in my paper: it is
interesting to note that so many modern scientific advances took place in
China. As I wrote in my paper, “Chinese physicists developed a nuclear reactor
in 1958, created an atomic bomb in 1964, as well as a missile to deliver it in
1966, and put a satellite into orbit in 1970.”
Megan Gerking
Evolution of the Universal System
The design of the system of the universe underwent many changes, developing slowly into what we now consider fact. With considerable justification, you can view Galileo Galilei as the father of modern astronomy. Although, he couldn’t have made so many contributions to astronomy without the help of many important astronomers before him. There were a number of extremely influential astronomers that made strides in the field during their lifetimes. My paper goes through time, from Aristotle during Antiquity until Galileo in the 17th century, focusing on six astronomers and their work.
The Aristotelian universal system supported a geocentric model. The universe was divided into two parts, the sublunary region and the heavens, and was governed by the concept of place, not space (Van Helden 1). Aristotle said that the sublunary region was composed of four elements: earth, water, air, and fire. He believed that heavenly bodies were part of spherical shells of aether. The heavens were made up of unchanging perfect substance. Each shell fit tightly around one another without any spaces. The sublunary region was the space within the moon’s sphere, which surrounded earth. The rest was considered to be the heavens.
Ptolemy’s biggest contribution was the Almagest, a comprehensive presentation of mathematical astronomy. He displayed all ancient astronomy known and contributed his own ideas of celestial movement. Ptolemy explains the motion using a geocentric model of the universe—where the earth is at the center (like Aristotle’s). He uses epicycles to explain retrograde motion of the planets’ paths.
Ptolemy and Aristotle represented the trusted systems until Copernicus came along in the 16th century. The Copernican Revolution was responsible for ushering in the introduction of one of the biggest changes to the universe—heliocentricism. A sun centered universe would become the new, controversial theory. The sun centered universe was finite, surrounded by the fixed stars. Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn revolved around the sun. Copernicus published all of his discoveries in De Revolutionibus in 1543. Fortunately, Copernicus’s new theory didn’t cause much controversy, but it was mostly due to the unavailability of the book.
Before Galileo would make his debut, two very influential astronomers had to discover a few crucial aspects of the universe that contributed to the development of the universal system. They were Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler. Tycho's data fit the Copernican model, but he was in doubt because of a problem with gravitation. Tycho devised his own system, with the Earth in the center. The Moon and Sun revolved about the Earth, and the shell of the fixed stars was centered on the Earth. Kepler was able to convert all of Brahe’s extensive observations into laws of the universe. His three laws were the biggest contributions to the formation of the universal system. Kepler’s first law is that planets travel around the sun in elliptical orbits, not in circles, and that one focus of the ellipse is occupied by the sun. Kepler’s Second Law said a “Planet moves in its orbit in such a manner that a line drawn from the planet to the sun always sweeps over equal area in equal times, not at uniform speed.” The third law basically states in other words, each and every planet has the same constant of proportionality.
Galileo finally made his debut in the beginning of the 17th century. Even though he is not attributed with the invention of the telescope, he was one of the first astronomers to make and utilize one. The first important discovery he made with the telescope was prove the existence of four moons around Jupiter. He also observed sun spots, which established that the sun rotated on an axis. The most important discovery Galileo made was that Venus went through a complete set of phases, like the moon. This was observational proof that was consistent with the Copernican system. In the Ptolemaic system, you should always be able to see Venus, but in the Copernican system Venus can only be viewed from Earth during some of its complete phase. Besides these, Galileo made numerous other observations that undermined the Ptolemaic system. As each new wonder was seen, more and more doubt was raised on the notion that there was nothing new to be observed in the heavens because they were made from a perfect, unchanging substance. Overall, the modern universal system is attributed to individual outstanding astronomers. A foundation of the universe began in Antiquity and while our universe still poses mysteries, a modern base was laid by the 17th century.
Catherine Kennedy
Although many ancient civilizations progressed in the area of medicine, the Greeks are considered to have rapidly developed the science of medicine and laid a foundation for modern medicine. Within Greek medicine, the most important advancements came from Hippocrates, which rests on the fact that Hippocratic medicine is considered to be the beginning of the western medical tradition and therefore the source from which scientific medicine would eventually originate. Above all, the work of the Egyptians should not be unnoticed, for the Egyptians had an affect on Greek medicine. Hippocratic medicine cannot be considered an anomaly for this connection and resemblance to previous works.
Greek medicine was very advanced for back in ancient times. In particular, Hippocratic medicine made important steps in the evolution of medicine. Hippocrates made the very essential change from the medicine found in other ancient civilizations. This change in medicine occurred from the belief in more rational thought and an emphasis on using the method of induction to be able to arrive at a conclusion. Although the Greeks made many advances, they did not have a total break away from supernatural elements. There are passages found in the Hippocratic Corpus in which these elements can be found. Though the art of careful observation was a contribution by Hippocrates, observation was also used and found in Egyptian medicine. There seems to be an evident connection that can be viewed between the two civilizations of Egypt and Greece. Egyptian medicine was also ahead of their time, as shown by the Edwin Smith Papyrus, which has similar contents to Hippocratic work. Egyptian medicine was not as many believe solely based on magic or the mystical. Each civilization laid the foundation for other cultures to build upon.
Daniel Kochis
Spontaneous
Generation
Throughout history the idea of spontaneous generation has been a topic of debate among scientists. The ideas and theories of spontaneous generation can be traced back to one man, Aristotle. He is considered to be to the father of spontaneous generation. To understand his philosophy on the matter one must realize his beliefs of chance and spontaneity. In Physics he explains his ideas of chance and spontaneity. Through this it can deducted that Aristotle is a believer of both, which leads him to attribute the reproduction of certain species to spontaneous generation.
His beliefs and ideas of spontaneous generation can be seen in The Generation of Animals and The History of Animals. In the former he attributes the reproduction of insects, the production of embryos of certain birds, the reproduction of some bees, and the reproduction of testacea to spontaneous generation. In the latter the generation of mullet, fry, cockles, clams, razor fish, sponges, insects and eels is said to be spontaneous.
In both works Aristotle goes into detail about the generation of each mentioned animal.
Aristotle’s ideas and research played a major role in the evolution of the idea of spontaneous generation. There have been many interpretations of spontaneous generation throughout history, but it is held that Aristotle’s writing attest for the belief in the formation of animals by spontaneous generation. In the third century the Stoics used Aristotle’s ideas for their interpretation of spontaneous generation along with Neoplatonists of the same time. Also, The Fathers of the Catholic Church had writings about spontaneous generation. Saint Augustine incorporated his ideas of spontaneous generation into the Church. Then Thomas Aquinas combined St. Augustine’s ideas with the philosophy of Aristotle to form his interpretation in the thirteenth century. It was only until the seventeenth century when effective microscopes were built that Aristotle was first questioned. What was observed did not agree with Aristotle’s research. Even then it was still hard to get pass the authority of Aristotle.
Jeremy Hannich
Conservation of Energy
The theory of energy conservation began back in ancient Greece as an idea that was founded on philosophy. Basically, they did not have any scientific evidence to back up their claims but only had their famous thought experiments which they later tried to prove. As time progressed, so did the theory, but it made its biggest jumps from 1955-1889. In this time period many well known scientists came up with different theories on energy conservation in the universe and why their particular theories where better than the ones before them.
This period starts with Simon Stevin and his theory that since perpetual motion (continuous motion) was impossible, he argued, through scientific experiments, that energy can not be gained from nothing. Basically Stevin was saying that you have to conserve energy because in order to get something you have to give something up. Galileo was a contemporary of Stevin and he argued along the same lines, trying to support Stevin’s theories. After Galileo came René Descartes. He took this theory and stated that momentum is what is actually conserved. By this he defined this energy a little more by giving it a specific value or concept. Christiaan Huygens and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz disagreed in that they believed that it was kinetic energy, or what was called vis viva, that was conserved (this ends up being the integral of momentum as defined by Stevin).
In the late 1700’s Lagrange wrote his Mécanique analytique in which he furthered the theory of energy conservation by writing a new general equation in which time did not have any affect. Later, Hermann von Helmholtz wrote more about how forces and momentum should be defined and introduced the idea of heat as energy. His idea was expanded upon by James Prescott Joule who was able to prove that heat energy can be substituted for mechanical energy. With that he should that energy of all forms is conserved and that one energy can be turned into another without losing or gaining energy. The theory is still being researched today and will probably continue to expand as more research is done.
Meg LeDuc
The developments of the Scientific Renaissance, especially the Copernican theory and the work of Brahe, Kepler, and Galileo, inspired the poetry of its time, perhaps most strongly the poetry of John Donne (1572-1631). Both the traditional medieval science and the “new philosophy” strongly interested Donne, and he drew upon them in his work, adapting scientific ideas to serve as literary metaphors and symbols. His poetry demonstrates his familiarity with many of the most important scientific writings of his time, particularly the work of Galileo, William Gilbert, and Kepler. Inspired by Kepler, who was, like Donne, devoutly religious and even mystical, Donne explored the idea of a divine geometrical structure in nature. In many ways, he envisioned science as extending humanity’s understanding of divinity, which he defined as a mingling of the natural and spiritual worlds. Yet unlike Kepler, who enthusiastically embraced the new science as a means of finally understanding the divine, Donne recognized limitations of reason. Though passionately interested in the developing science, he believed that it demonstrated the chaotic state of the world; consequently, he subordinated reason to theology, asserting that the structure of God’s universe was essentially incomprehensible. Though the “new philosophy” of Renaissance science powerfully influenced his poetry, inspiring his imagination and enabling him to describe the nature of reality in new ways, yet ultimately represented for Donne the decaying harmony of religion with science.
Tassie Hajal
Da Vinci
My paper is on Leonardo da Vinci and his contribution to anatomy
and anatomical illustration. Most
people associate his name solely with art and the magnificent Mona Lisa, but
his contributions in other fields were tremendous. As a result of his artistic background, of course, his anatomical
illustrations were second to none.
Throughout his twenty-five-year anatomical career, he completed hundreds
of sketches of all different parts of the body, both interior and exterior, stationary
and in movement, at all different stages of life. These sketches were the outcome of the over thirty dissections of
human corpses (not to mention the many animal corpses) that Leonardo carried
out himself. Though he studied the body
from head to toe, he did a lot of work on the heart, and even more on the head
and nervous system. His series of skull
drawings are renowned, and his work on the nervous system, including his
conclusion that the spinal cord is the center of life, is well-known.
Leonardo is known first and foremost as an artist, but it would be
a mistake to undermine his role as a scientist because of this. Leonardo, who believed deeply in the
scientific nature of painting, combined the artists interest in the exterior of
the human body and the anatomists interest in the interior. He felt that he could not truly represent
the human form unless he had a firm knowledge of both. Leonardo possessed an amazing ability to
synthesize the two subject matters: as an artist, his eye was trained to
observe of the most subtle of nuances.
This enabled him to look at the human body subjectively, and make
scientific connections between the different parts and their functions. Like a scientist, he believed in empiricism,
and knew that simply viewing his drawings would not teach a student half as
much as would seeing a dissected body itself.
He never recorded anything until he was absolutely sure of its accuracy,
and when he finally did put his findings down on paper, his explanations are
detailed, yet clear, his drawings perfected to the best of his knowledge. He did not work for solely artistic
purposes, either. It is possible that
he started out his study of anatomy to help him with his artwork, but there is
no doubt that somewhere in the middle he became truly enamored with the science,
and his undying curiosity drove him further in that direction. He was, however, the first artist to achieve
systematic knowledge of medical science, and therefore his manuscripts can
serve as relatively advanced educational tools and manuals. Considering the fact that writing an anatomy
book for a specific target groupespecially just artistswas not really done in
the 16th and 17th centuries, it can be assumed that Leonardo was writing mostly
for medical professionals. Some of his
notes do refer to artists, but more do to anatomists and physicians, and the
didactical manner in which his manuscripts were illustrated better serve
medical professionals.
The most perplexing aspect of Leonardos career though, and the debate that this paper intends to examine, is the fact that he never published anything. Sources indicate that he had had various plans for publications, but in one way or another, all of them fell through. Critics argue that if Leonardos work was not copied and distributed, there is no way it could have influenced other anatomists, therefore he could have had no effect on the evolution of medical science. When the works of Leonardos contemporaries and followers are studied, though, it is hard to believe that he had no impact on anatomy. His influence can be seen in the works of famous anatomists such as Berengario da Carpi, Arphe, William Hunter, and even Vesalius. Aspects of many of these scientists works are unmistakably adaptations of Leonardos techniques and theories, suggesting that they were familiar with his work. Though Leonardos notebooks were never published, he was known to be working on anatomy, and he did show his manuscripts to some friends and associates. As few as these people may be, if he showed his work to the right ones, those who were likely themselves to help advancement in the field (which is very likely), then his ideas were indeed being spread. His impact was not limited to informational, either. The mere fact that he was known to be working on dissections and anatomical illustration was enough to spark interest and inspiration in the rest of the artistic and scientific community. There is a definite correlation between Leonardos anatomical work and the sudden popularity in anatomical illustration and studies. Once Leonardo influenced minds such as Vesalius, who then influenced so many others himself, there is no end to the impact that Leonardo had on the evolution of medical science and anatomy.
Evolution of Mathematical Theory of Sound
Propagation
Aaron Eash
The theory that sound propagates in wave form has been around since the days of Aristotle. Aristotle knew that sound was produced by an object’s vibrations creating “concussions” with the air leading to pressure differences and eventually sound. However, perhaps the most interesting piece of information dealing with the evolution of this theory is the fact that after the initial theory was developed, it took over two millennia for the final mathematical equation to be derived.
The reasons for this are far-reaching and numerous, but three main reasons include: the Dark Ages, the tertiary role that sound plays in our daily lives, and the fact that the mathematics needed to derive the modern day wave equation weren’t in place until the beginning of the 18th century. The Dark Ages of course were those infamous years from about A.D. 500 to A.D. 1000 when little scientific progress was made. The idea that sound plays a tertiary role in our lives come from the fact that the motion of objects and sight (or optics) are much more apparent to most scientists and, henceforth, have been the primary focuses of physics throughout history. Finally, the mathematical aspect was perhaps the most important and significant inhibitor of the development of the wave theory.
The development of the mathematics truly got started when Newton and Leibniz invented differential, and eventually integral calculus. The next major developments included differential equations with solutions and partial differential equations. The latter of these two was discovered by Jean Bernoulli and Leibniz. Partial differential equations basically allow for differentiation in multi-variable functions by allowing all but one of the variables to remain as constants in the equation.
However, Bernoulli and Leibniz didn’t publish their findings regarding partial differential equations for years in order to reap the benefits for themselves in a sense. It wasn’t until 50 years later that partial differential equations were used in relation to sound. D’Alembert was performing a study on the vibrations of strings and he was eventually led to the differential equation that is the basic form of what we call in modern mathematics the wave equation (Euler generalized d’Alembert’s equation, and that is what we use today).
Lagrange took a different approach to deriving the equation for wave propagation. He treated each part of the vibrating string as an infinitely small part with its own frequency, and he eventually derived an equation that’s based on integration. Poisson perfected this equation in 1820 and his equation is that which is used in specific calculations involving sound propagation today (but Euler’s equation is usually the basic equation that is taught).
So there was a long procession of advancements that led to today’s equation for the propagation of sound and there were also numerous forms of adversity that had to be overcome throughout history in order for the final equation to be derived. There was no one simple reason that led to the two millennia pause between the conceptual theory of wave propagation and the mathematical equation that describes it.
How Chemistry Changed Photography
Jessica Stith
There are several ways in which this occurred. I will outline just a few.
Like a lot of other things, it started with Aristotle. He was the most prominent in making observations of how light affected certain metals and materials in ancient times. He noted how leaves of plants changed because of light.
Pliny was the first to note changes in silver because of light. This was the first important step in the development of photography.
Several processes were developed that changed the course of photography. The first was the direct result of more knowledge of the solubility of elements. Equations looked much like they do today that defined these processes:
Silver + Nitric Acid ® Silver Nitrate
3Ag + 4HNO3 ® 3AgNO3 + NO + 2H2O
Silver Nitrate + Potassium Bromide
AgNO3 + KBr ® AgBr + KNO3
Light causes Silver Bromide to react
AgBr + Light ® Ag + Br-
To fix image, unused silver Bromide is removed
AgBr +
2(S2O3=) ® Br- + [Ag(S2O3)2]=
At the time when photographs were first produced, however, the way to fix the image hadn’t yet been discovered.
Another important advance was the result of Dr. Vogel’s experiments. He created processes that are still used today using gelatin plates. This process allowed for a more sensitive photographic plate to fix the image. He also made several advances with the use of halides in photography. He can be considered the founder of modern photography.
The next important advance came much later, when the radius of the nucleus was discovered. With that this equation can be used to find exactly how sensitive the silver making the photograph will be:
R = 2sVag / F DE
R= radius of silver nucleus
s= specific surface energy
F= Faraday constant (Karlheinz 5)
All of these advances were instrumental in creating the modern photographic methods that we use today.
John Keeton
Aristotle’s explanation of
Earthquakes
My paper is on Aristotle’s explanation of earthquakes as he
wrote it in his book called Meteorlogica. Aristotle built open some of the
existing theories at the time of how earthquakes propagated and went into
extreme depth with his theory.
Some of the existing theories were that of Anaxagoras,
Democritus, and Anaximenes. Anaxagoras believed that earthquakes were caused by
air becoming trapped hollows beneath the earth. He believed that the earth
consisted of two parts and that humans lived on the upper part. Because the
natural motion of air is upward when the wind would become trapped beneath, an
earthquake would form.
Democritus and Anaximenes believed that earthquakes were caused
by water that filled the earth. Democritus attributed earthquakes to the water
building up inside the earth until the pressure was too great and thus an
earthquake was formed, while, Anaximenes believed that when the earth dried and
was wet due to a lack of water or an abundance of it, an earthquake arose.
Aristotle refuted all three of these theories will proof and
with observations. His theory on why earthquakes occurred was that wind was the
primary cause of earthquakes and that the earthquakes were caused by
“exhalations” in the earth (or the releasing of air from the earth). This could
be caused by both a wet and a dry earth.
Although this theory doesn’t seem much more advanced than the
other three, Aristotle differs from the others in the way that he takes his
theory to a higher level by giving a full explanation of earthquakes and how
they relate to other natural occurrences.
He discusses when earthquakes are the severest, where they are
most common, and the frequency of the occurrence of them. He also backs these
speculations up with some good observations that he made experiencing earthquakes
in a couple different countries.
He also explained how earthquakes relate to other occurrences
such as eclipses of the moon, subterranean noises, and tidal waves. Although,
most of these associations that Aristotle made don’t make much sense now, they
were very important back then because of the depth to which he went into this
issue. This in depth explanation that Aristotle went into helped pave the road
for the future theories.
Rachel
Wells
Atomic
Theory
Dating
back to the sixth and fifth centuries BC, early philosophers, scientists, and
physicists have searched for the core substance of matter. By removing many
mythical and spiritual aspects from philosophy, they were able to more
rationally examine and explain the universe.
They were looking for rationality as to why and how substances changed,
an explanation to the universe and its seemingly unstableness. Eventually, through the atomic theory, it
was discovered and proved that matter is made up of small, indivisible
particles: atoms. There were many
theories as to what matter was essentially composed of, such as water, earth,
air and fire, ether, apeiron. There are
many aspects of how these theories came about and how intellectual processes
were used to form the idea of the concept of a sole component of matter.
Freedom of expression and open
debate were important factors in new theories being expressed. Also present was a relatively tolerate
government. Empedocles started with the
original theory of pluralism, or plurisubstantialism, which states that matter
is comprised of four essential substances: earth, water, air, and fire, all of equal importance. Thales of Miletus believed that matter had
its base in water, a monism point of view.
At that time, water was the only polymorphic substance that they knew
of. Its change to solid, liquid and
gas/vapor was perplexing, and could in some way resemble all matter on earth in
its different states.
Parmenides, and later his successor
Zeno, believed the universe was filled with indestructible matter, an element
of the four fundamental substances, and did not contain a void. Movement and change were just illusion. Parmenides was the first scholar to suggest
a ‘Being’, making the constituent of matter everlasting, homogenous, essential,
indivisible, and indestructible.
Democritus and his predecessor,
Leucippis, theorized atoms in reaction
to the theories of Parmenides and Zeno who believed the formative substance of
the universe was the Being: an infinite, all encompassing, motionless mass that
contained no empty space, or void. In
Democritus’ a void must be present to explain how atoms could be separate, and
have the ability to move. Thus, change was nothing but the union and separation
of atoms.
By this time, mid fourth century BC,
it seems as though the framework for the construction of the atomic theory has
been built, but it takes over a thousand years for the notions of atomic theory
to catch on main stream in society.
Looking at Plato’s and Aristotle’s works explain this phenomenon, as
they both spent their live’s work trying to disprove atoms.
The thoughts put forth by Plato and Aristotle gave people ammunition to shoot down the concept of the atom. The atom was cold and inhuman to them and they were unable to physically sense them. The four elements gave them a sense of connection to everything in terms that they could understand, because they could sense the four elements. Within the mind of the mass public, the thought of the atom slowly died out, and even all ideas of the theory of matter came to a halt between the late centuries BC, and the majority of the AD centuries, due to a decline in scientific thought and religious persecution. Finally during the renaissance, scientific minds were awoken, and the atomic theory could once again be revitalized. With technological advances, more about atoms was discovered and proved. Scientists such as Rutherford, Bohr, and especially Dalton, made great contributions to the atomic theory, perfecting it to what we know today, but it wouldn’t have been possible without first the great Greek minds of the fifth and sixth centuries BC.
Jameel Naqvi
Theories of Evolution
My term paper is about the theory of evolution. Evolution began as an idea in antiquity. Plato espoused the view that the earth has changed gradually over time to reach its present state. Some medieval thinkers also held this view. 17th and 18th century naturalists began to support transformism, the idea that species change over time. One early proponent of the theory of evolution was Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin’s grandfather. His theory was of evolution by acquired characteristics obtained by acts of the will. Jean Lamarck, a French naturalist, fully developed this theory. He believed that traits acquired by an organism during its lifetime could be passed on to the offspring. Lamarck gave the false mechanism for evolution. But he put forth many important ideas: the impermanence of species, the action of the environment on organisms, the effects of use and disuse. Charles Lyell was a Scotch geologist contemporaneous with Darwin. His doctrine of Uniformitarianism depicted the earth as going through a series of uniform changes that, in summation, led to the geologic structures we witness today. He spoke against the pure Creationism of Genesis and against the competing doctrine of Catastrophism, which ascribed the geologic features to forces that have ceased to act today. Lyell showed that huge expanses of time were necessary for such changes to occur. Thomas Malthus believed that species have a natural tendency to maximize the number of offspring. However, population growth, according to Malthus, would outpace the increase in food supply. But before food supply limited growth, Malthus contended other natural checks such as disease would act. Darwin took this notion of differential survival and molded it into natural selection, also adopting Lamarck’s transformism and Lyell’s geologic time. Through his work, the contributions of his predecessors have survived to this day.