text: Darwin, too, noted these sorts of differences between similar kinds of animal, but unlike Aristotle used the data to come to the theory of evolution.Aristotle's writings can seem to modern readers close to implying evolution, but while Aristotle was aware that new mutations or hybridizations could occur, he saw these as rare accidents.For Aristotle, accidents, like heat waves in winter, must be considered distinct from natural causes.He was thus critical of Empedocles's materialist theory of a "survival of the fittest" origin of living things and their organs, and ridiculed the idea that accidents could lead to orderly results.To put his views into modern terms, he nowhere says that different species can have a common ancestor, or that one kind can change into another, or that kinds can become extinct.Scientific style Aristotle did not do experiments in the modern sense.He used the ancient Greek term pepeiramenoi to mean observations, or at most investigative procedures like dissection.In Generation of Animals, he finds a fertilized hen's egg of a suitable stage and opens it to see the embryo's heart beating inside.Instead, he practiced a different style of science: systematically gathering data, discovering patterns common to whole groups of animals, and inferring possible causal explanations from these.This style is common in modern biology when large amounts of data become available in a new field, such as genomics.It does not result in the same certainty as experimental science, but it sets out testable hypotheses and constructs a narrative explanation of what is observed.In this sense, Aristotle's biology is scientific.From the data he collected and documented, Aristotle inferred quite a number of rules relating the life-history features of the live-bearing tetrapods (terrestrial placental mammals) that he studied.Among these correct predictions are the following.