Home
Class 12
BIOLOGY
Assertion :- Charles Robert Darwin stron...

Assertion :- Charles Robert Darwin strongly challanged the ideas of special creation theory.
Reason :- Darwin was influenced by idea of use and desuse of lamarck

A

If both Assertion & Reason are True & the Reason is a correct explanation of the Assertion.

B

If both Assertion & Reason are True but Reason is a not a correct explanation of the Assertion.

C

If Assertion is True but the Reason is False.

D

If both Assertion & Reason are false.

Text Solution

AI Generated Solution

The correct Answer is:
### Step-by-Step Text Solution: 1. **Understanding the Assertion**: The assertion states that Charles Robert Darwin strongly challenged the ideas of the special creation theory. This theory posits that life on Earth was created by a supernatural power. Darwin's work, particularly his theory of natural selection, indeed opposes this idea by suggesting that species evolve over time through natural processes. 2. **Evaluating the Reason**: The reason provided states that Darwin was influenced by Lamarck's idea of use and disuse. Lamarck proposed that organisms could change during their lifetime based on their use of certain traits, and these changes could be passed on to their offspring. However, while Darwin acknowledged the existence of variations among species, he did not base his theory of natural selection on Lamarck's ideas. 3. **Determining Truth Values**: - **Assertion**: True. Darwin did challenge the special creation theory. - **Reason**: False. Darwin was not primarily influenced by Lamarck's ideas; instead, he was more influenced by Malthus's population theory. 4. **Conclusion**: Since the assertion is true and the reason is false, we conclude that the correct answer is that the assertion is true, but the reason is false. ### Final Answer: - **Assertion**: True - **Reason**: False
Doubtnut Promotions Banner Mobile Dark
|

Topper's Solved these Questions

  • ORIGIN & EVOLUTION OF LIFE

    ALLEN|Exercise EXERCISE-III B(ANALYTICAL QUESTIONS)|35 Videos

  • ORIGIN & EVOLUTION

    ALLEN|Exercise S|65 Videos

  • PHOTOSYNTHESIS IN HIGHER PLANTS

    ALLEN|Exercise Match the column|3 Videos

Similar Questions

Explore conceptually related problems

Assertion :- Branching descent and Natural selection are the two key concepts of Darwinian theory of evolution. Reason :- Darwinism is able to explain the presence of vestigeal organ.

Assertion : Human ancestors never used their tails and so the tails expressing gene has disappeared in them. Reason : Lamarck's theory of evolution is popularly called theory of continuity of germ plasm.

Knowledge Check

  • Assertion: Human ancestors never used their tails and so the tail-expressing gene has disappeared in them. Reason: Lamarck's theory of evolution is popularly called theory of continuity of germplasm.

    A
    If both Assertion and Reason are true and the Reason is the correct explanation of the Assertion
    B
    If both Assertion and Reason are true and the Reason is not the correct explanation of the Assertion.
    C
    If Assertion is true but the Reason is false.
    D
    If both Assertion and Reason are false.

  • Read the given statements and select the correct ones. (i) Swan-necked flask experiment was done by Louis Pasteur. (ii) The early belief of the spontaneous origin of life was disproved by Louis paseteur. (iii) Louis Pasteur is famour for germ theory of dieseases. (iv) The idea that life originates from pre-existing life is referred to as biogenesis theory. (v) Father Suarez was one of the greatest supporter of theory of special creation. (vi) Cosmozoic theory of the origin of life was proposed by Richter. (vii) The founder of 'theory of catastrophism' is Georges Cuvier.

    A
    i,ii,iv and vi
    B
    ii,v and vii
    C
    iii,iv,v and vii
    D
    i,ii,iii,iv,v,vi,vii

  • Passage 1 That half the human race is excluded by the other half from any participation in government, that they are native by birth but foreign by law in the very land where they were born, and that they are line 5- property-owners yet have no direct influence or representation: are all political phenomena apparently impossible to explain on abstract principle. But on another level of ideas, the question changes and may be easily resolved. The purpose of line 10- all these institutions must be the happiness of the greatest number. Everything that leads us farther from this purpose is in error, everything that brings us closer is truth. If the exclusion from public employments decreed against women leads to a line 15- greater sum of mutual happiness for the two sexes, then this becomes a law that all Societies have been compelled to acknowledge and sanction. Any other ambition would be a reversal of our primary destinies, and it will never be in women’s line 20- interest to change the assignment they have received. It seems to us incontestable that our common happiness, above all that of women, requires that they never aspire to the exercise of political rights and functions. Here we must seek their interests in line 25- the wishes of nature. Is it not apparent, that their delicate constitutions, their peaceful inclinations, and the many duties of motherhood, set them apart from strenuous habits and onerous duties, and summon them to gentle occupations and the cares of the line 30- home? And is it not evident that the great conserving principle of Societies, which makes the division of powers a source of harmony, has been expressed and revealed by nature itself, when it divided the functions of the two sexes in so obviously distinct a line 35- manner? This is sufficient, we need not invoke principles that are inapplicable to the question. Let us not make rivals of life’s companions. You must, you truly must allow the persistence of a union that no interest, no rivalry, can possibly undo. Understand line 40 - that the good of all demands this of you. Passage 2 Contending for the rights of woman, my main argument is built on this simple principle, that if she be not prepared by education to become the companion of man, she will stop the progress of line 45- knowledge and virtue, for truth must be common to all, or it will be inefficacious with respect to its influence on general practice. And how can woman be expected to co-operate unless she know why she ought to be virtuous? unless freedom strengthen her line 50- reason till she comprehend her duty, and see in what manner it is connected with her real good? If children are to be educated to understand the true principle of patriotism, their mother must be a patriot, and the love of mankind, from which an line 55- orderly train of virtues spring, can only be produced by considering the moral and civil interest of mankind, but the education and situation of woman, at present, shuts her out from such investigations.... Consider, sir, dispassionately, these line 60- observations—for a glimpse of this truth seemed to open before you when you observed, “that to see one half of the human race excluded by the other from all participation of government, was a political phenomenon that, according to abstract principles, it line 65- was impossible to explain.” If so, on what does your constitution rest? If the abstract rights of man will bear discussion and explanation, those of woman, by a parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the same test: though a different opinion prevails in this line 70- country, built on the very arguments which you use to justify the oppression of woman—prescription. Consider—I address you as a legislator— whether, when men contend for their freedom, and to be allowed to judge for themselves respecting their line 75- own happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust to subjugate women, even though you firmly believe that you are acting in the manner best calculated to promote their happiness? Who made man the exclusive judge, if woman partake with him the gift line 80- of reason? In this style, argue tyrants of every denomination, from the weak king to the weak father of a family, they are all eager to crush reason, yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to be line 85- useful. Do you not act a similar part, when you force all women, by denying them civil and political rights, to remain immured in their families groping in the dark? As used in line 21, “common” most nearly means

    A
    average
    B
    shared.
    C
    coarse
    D
    similar

    • Similar Questions

    Explore conceptually related problems

    One of the greatest advocates of the theory of special creation was (a) C. Darwin (b) Aristotle (c) Father Saurez (d) Huxley

    Assertion : Theory of special creation attributes the origin of life to a vitalistic event. Reason :According to this theory, the God is creator of life.

    Passage 1 That half the human race is excluded by the other half from any participation in government, that they are native by birth but foreign by law in the very land where they were born, and that they are line 5- property-owners yet have no direct influence or representation: are all political phenomena apparently impossible to explain on abstract principle. But on another level of ideas, the question changes and may be easily resolved. The purpose of line 10- all these institutions must be the happiness of the greatest number. Everything that leads us farther from this purpose is in error, everything that brings us closer is truth. If the exclusion from public employments decreed against women leads to a line 15- greater sum of mutual happiness for the two sexes, then this becomes a law that all Societies have been compelled to acknowledge and sanction. Any other ambition would be a reversal of our primary destinies, and it will never be in women’s line 20- interest to change the assignment they have received. It seems to us incontestable that our common happiness, above all that of women, requires that they never aspire to the exercise of political rights and functions. Here we must seek their interests in line 25- the wishes of nature. Is it not apparent, that their delicate constitutions, their peaceful inclinations, and the many duties of motherhood, set them apart from strenuous habits and onerous duties, and summon them to gentle occupations and the cares of the line 30- home? And is it not evident that the great conserving principle of Societies, which makes the division of powers a source of harmony, has been expressed and revealed by nature itself, when it divided the functions of the two sexes in so obviously distinct a line 35- manner? This is sufficient, we need not invoke principles that are inapplicable to the question. Let us not make rivals of life’s companions. You must, you truly must allow the persistence of a union that no interest, no rivalry, can possibly undo. Understand line 40 - that the good of all demands this of you. Passage 2 Contending for the rights of woman, my main argument is built on this simple principle, that if she be not prepared by education to become the companion of man, she will stop the progress of line 45- knowledge and virtue, for truth must be common to all, or it will be inefficacious with respect to its influence on general practice. And how can woman be expected to co-operate unless she know why she ought to be virtuous? unless freedom strengthen her line 50- reason till she comprehend her duty, and see in what manner it is connected with her real good? If children are to be educated to understand the true principle of patriotism, their mother must be a patriot, and the love of mankind, from which an line 55- orderly train of virtues spring, can only be produced by considering the moral and civil interest of mankind, but the education and situation of woman, at present, shuts her out from such investigations.... Consider, sir, dispassionately, these line 60- observations—for a glimpse of this truth seemed to open before you when you observed, “that to see one half of the human race excluded by the other from all participation of government, was a political phenomenon that, according to abstract principles, it line 65- was impossible to explain.” If so, on what does your constitution rest? If the abstract rights of man will bear discussion and explanation, those of woman, by a parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the same test: though a different opinion prevails in this line 70- country, built on the very arguments which you use to justify the oppression of woman—prescription. Consider—I address you as a legislator— whether, when men contend for their freedom, and to be allowed to judge for themselves respecting their line 75- own happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust to subjugate women, even though you firmly believe that you are acting in the manner best calculated to promote their happiness? Who made man the exclusive judge, if woman partake with him the gift line 80- of reason? In this style, argue tyrants of every denomination, from the weak king to the weak father of a family, they are all eager to crush reason, yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to be line 85- useful. Do you not act a similar part, when you force all women, by denying them civil and political rights, to remain immured in their families groping in the dark? t can be inferred that the authors of Passage 1 believe that running a household and raising children

    Passage 1 That half the human race is excluded by the other half from any participation in government, that they are native by birth but foreign by law in the very land where they were born, and that they are line 5- property-owners yet have no direct influence or representation: are all political phenomena apparently impossible to explain on abstract principle. But on another level of ideas, the question changes and may be easily resolved. The purpose of line 10- all these institutions must be the happiness of the greatest number. Everything that leads us farther from this purpose is in error, everything that brings us closer is truth. If the exclusion from public employments decreed against women leads to a line 15- greater sum of mutual happiness for the two sexes, then this becomes a law that all Societies have been compelled to acknowledge and sanction. Any other ambition would be a reversal of our primary destinies, and it will never be in women’s line 20- interest to change the assignment they have received. It seems to us incontestable that our common happiness, above all that of women, requires that they never aspire to the exercise of political rights and functions. Here we must seek their interests in line 25- the wishes of nature. Is it not apparent, that their delicate constitutions, their peaceful inclinations, and the many duties of motherhood, set them apart from strenuous habits and onerous duties, and summon them to gentle occupations and the cares of the line 30- home? And is it not evident that the great conserving principle of Societies, which makes the division of powers a source of harmony, has been expressed and revealed by nature itself, when it divided the functions of the two sexes in so obviously distinct a line 35- manner? This is sufficient, we need not invoke principles that are inapplicable to the question. Let us not make rivals of life’s companions. You must, you truly must allow the persistence of a union that no interest, no rivalry, can possibly undo. Understand line 40 - that the good of all demands this of you. Passage 2 Contending for the rights of woman, my main argument is built on this simple principle, that if she be not prepared by education to become the companion of man, she will stop the progress of line 45- knowledge and virtue, for truth must be common to all, or it will be inefficacious with respect to its influence on general practice. And how can woman be expected to co-operate unless she know why she ought to be virtuous? unless freedom strengthen her line 50- reason till she comprehend her duty, and see in what manner it is connected with her real good? If children are to be educated to understand the true principle of patriotism, their mother must be a patriot, and the love of mankind, from which an line 55- orderly train of virtues spring, can only be produced by considering the moral and civil interest of mankind, but the education and situation of woman, at present, shuts her out from such investigations.... Consider, sir, dispassionately, these line 60- observations—for a glimpse of this truth seemed to open before you when you observed, “that to see one half of the human race excluded by the other from all participation of government, was a political phenomenon that, according to abstract principles, it line 65- was impossible to explain.” If so, on what does your constitution rest? If the abstract rights of man will bear discussion and explanation, those of woman, by a parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the same test: though a different opinion prevails in this line 70- country, built on the very arguments which you use to justify the oppression of woman—prescription. Consider—I address you as a legislator— whether, when men contend for their freedom, and to be allowed to judge for themselves respecting their line 75- own happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust to subjugate women, even though you firmly believe that you are acting in the manner best calculated to promote their happiness? Who made man the exclusive judge, if woman partake with him the gift line 80- of reason? In this style, argue tyrants of every denomination, from the weak king to the weak father of a family, they are all eager to crush reason, yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to be line 85- useful. Do you not act a similar part, when you force all women, by denying them civil and political rights, to remain immured in their families groping in the dark? Which choice provides the best evidence for the answer to the previous question?

    Passage 1 That half the human race is excluded by the other half from any participation in government, that they are native by birth but foreign by law in the very land where they were born, and that they are line 5- property-owners yet have no direct influence or representation: are all political phenomena apparently impossible to explain on abstract principle. But on another level of ideas, the question changes and may be easily resolved. The purpose of line 10- all these institutions must be the happiness of the greatest number. Everything that leads us farther from this purpose is in error, everything that brings us closer is truth. If the exclusion from public employments decreed against women leads to a line 15- greater sum of mutual happiness for the two sexes, then this becomes a law that all Societies have been compelled to acknowledge and sanction. Any other ambition would be a reversal of our primary destinies, and it will never be in women’s line 20- interest to change the assignment they have received. It seems to us incontestable that our common happiness, above all that of women, requires that they never aspire to the exercise of political rights and functions. Here we must seek their interests in line 25- the wishes of nature. Is it not apparent, that their delicate constitutions, their peaceful inclinations, and the many duties of motherhood, set them apart from strenuous habits and onerous duties, and summon them to gentle occupations and the cares of the line 30- home? And is it not evident that the great conserving principle of Societies, which makes the division of powers a source of harmony, has been expressed and revealed by nature itself, when it divided the functions of the two sexes in so obviously distinct a line 35- manner? This is sufficient, we need not invoke principles that are inapplicable to the question. Let us not make rivals of life’s companions. You must, you truly must allow the persistence of a union that no interest, no rivalry, can possibly undo. Understand line 40 - that the good of all demands this of you. Passage 2 Contending for the rights of woman, my main argument is built on this simple principle, that if she be not prepared by education to become the companion of man, she will stop the progress of line 45- knowledge and virtue, for truth must be common to all, or it will be inefficacious with respect to its influence on general practice. And how can woman be expected to co-operate unless she know why she ought to be virtuous? unless freedom strengthen her line 50- reason till she comprehend her duty, and see in what manner it is connected with her real good? If children are to be educated to understand the true principle of patriotism, their mother must be a patriot, and the love of mankind, from which an line 55- orderly train of virtues spring, can only be produced by considering the moral and civil interest of mankind, but the education and situation of woman, at present, shuts her out from such investigations.... Consider, sir, dispassionately, these line 60- observations—for a glimpse of this truth seemed to open before you when you observed, “that to see one half of the human race excluded by the other from all participation of government, was a political phenomenon that, according to abstract principles, it line 65- was impossible to explain.” If so, on what does your constitution rest? If the abstract rights of man will bear discussion and explanation, those of woman, by a parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the same test: though a different opinion prevails in this line 70- country, built on the very arguments which you use to justify the oppression of woman—prescription. Consider—I address you as a legislator— whether, when men contend for their freedom, and to be allowed to judge for themselves respecting their line 75- own happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust to subjugate women, even though you firmly believe that you are acting in the manner best calculated to promote their happiness? Who made man the exclusive judge, if woman partake with him the gift line 80- of reason? In this style, argue tyrants of every denomination, from the weak king to the weak father of a family, they are all eager to crush reason, yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to be line 85- useful. Do you not act a similar part, when you force all women, by denying them civil and political rights, to remain immured in their families groping in the dark? According to the author of Passage 2, in order for society to progress, women must

    Home
    Profile