Risultati di ricerca
Richard Benedict Goldschmidt (12 Nisan 1878 - 24 Nisan 1958), Almanya doğumlu Amerikalı bir genetikçidir. Genetiği, gelişimi ve evrimi entegre etmeye çalışan ilk kişi olarak kabul edilir. [1] Tartışmalı bir şekilde Goldschmidt, popüler olarak "Hopeful Monster" hipotezi olarak bilinen makromutasyonlar yoluyla bir Makro evrim ...
14 ott 2008 · Michael R. Dietrich (2000) "From Hopeful Monsters to Homeotic Effects: Richard Goldschmidt's Integration of Development, Evolution, and Genetics" American Zoologist 40 (5):738 747. In short, Goldschmidt's erroneous ideas spurred other scientists to consider ideas which did ultimately improve our understanding of evolution.
1 giu 2002 · Richard Goldschmidt and the Crossing-Over Controversy. ONE of the basic tenets linking the Mendelian laws to the chromosomal theory of heredity was the assumption of “crossing over.”. On the basis of F. A. Jannsen's description of the “physical twisting or inter-twining that occurred between paired homologous chromosomes during the early ...
Richard Goldschmidt. Il genetista tedesco Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958) si trasferì negli USA a causa delle persecuzioni naziste e qui lavorò presso l'Università di Berkeley, dove scrisse il suo saggio più significativo,The Material Basis of Evolution (1940).
Sebbene alcuni ricercatori (tra gli altri Bateson e Richard Goldschmidt in Germania) mostrassero un perdurante scetticismo nei confronti della teoria cromosomica dell'eredità, nel 1931 furono ottenute le prove citologiche del crossing-over per il mais (Barbara McClintock e Harriet Creighton) e per Drosophila (Curt Stern), eliminando ogni dubbio.
Goldschmidt R. Crossing over Ohne Chiasmatypie? Genetics. 1917 Jan; 2 (1):82–95. [PMC free article] [Google Scholar] Sapp J. The struggle for authority in the field of heredity, 1900-1932: new perspectives on the rise of genetics. J Hist Biol. 1983 Fall; 16 (3):311–342. [Google Scholar] Sturtevant AH. Crossing over without Chiasmatype?
Richard Goldschmidt had a considerable influence on his contemporaries, and to dismiss him as an obstructionist because his opponents later proved to be more nearly right, distorts history and obscures significant questions which the authors might well be asking.
