If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

Speciation does happen, this falls within the parameters discovered by Gregor Mendel and made into scientificlaw.

Humanistic evolution taught in colleges...wow who would have thought. Just because the majority believe it to be true doesn't mean it is...

The 'science' of evolution is nothing short of a great delusion to lead people from the faith and belief in the one true G-d.

While you riducule the wisdom of men being foolish, I somehow doubt that when confronted with the true majesty and glory of our G-d and His Son, you will have the courage to tell Him to His face, "Your creation in six days days was allegorical leaving us with evolution as a truthful and legitimate science...more true that your word"

Ok, you never backed the first statement up so we will just chalk it up to unsubstantiated BS an I won't waste any more of my valuable time on it.

But can you back up THAT statement about Mendel. I don't believe for a minute that you can. I think it is just more unsubstantiated BS. Mendel never spoke of speciation at all. He studied variation of existing traits. Any novel traits produced by mutation would have been excluded from his work. Aside from the fact that the field of genetics has advanced somewhat in the century and a half since Mendel did his work. You reall need to come up with actual references as opposed to make believe ones first of all, and secondly try to use some that have been made since the invention of the light bulb.

So you know more about biology then a Yale biology professor?
Professing themselves to be wise....

The reclusive monk Gregor Mendel harvested from his garden of pea plants a system of quantifying and predicting heredity in an organism. His contemporary Charles Darwin traveled the world by ship, assembling from his observations and specimens an understanding of how the environment shapes inherited traits. In the 150 years since the time of Darwin and Mendel, biologists have built on their discoveries a detailed understanding of how the enormous diversity of species we see on Earth came to be and how species change and are changed by their environments. In this lecture, Donald J. Melnick, Director of the Center for Environmental Research and Conservation and a professor in Columbia's departments of anthropology and biological sciences, explores the genius of these two scientists, from their influences and experiences to how their perspectives and methods shape modern science.

if you want to talk about how Mendelian Genetics is opposed to Darwinism, I'm up for it.

With Darwin's theory and Mendel's laws, biology had for the first time a potential theoretical basis of its own.

Development Paradigm Shift Theory of Evolution species have exist essentially unchanged --> species evolve The Gene inheritance occurs by blending of traits --> particulate nature of inheritance DNA the gene is protein --> the gene is DNA

Table 2. How Science Can Become Metascience Darwin's observations lead to the hypothesis of natural selection as the operative force in evolution. observation --> hypothesis/theory Mendel quantifies inheritance and proposes the gene as the unit of inheritance. observation --> hypothesis/theory DNA is shown to be the genetic material. observation --> hypothesis/theory Genetic changes are the result of mutations. observation Mutations are random events that result in changes in DNA sequence. observation Mutations are proposed as the way in which variation occurs, upon which variations natural selection acts. induction It is not necessary to postulate an intelligent creator to explain the results of random events. logical, however metascience Science (through Darwinian evolution) proves that there is no God. illogical conclusion, metascience/philosophy

Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change. Although this opinion cannot be unconditionally accepted we find on the other hand in Gärtner's experiments a noteworthy confirmation of that supposition regarding variability of cultivated plants which has already been expressed.

Your quote is not complete by the way (shall we say out of context)

What Darwin Didn't Know: Gregor Mendel and the Mechanism of Heredity

Johann Gregor Mendel's meticulous experimentation cross-breeding pea plants resulted in evidence for a previously unknown mechanism for heredity. Darwin had struggled with this problem -- how did organisms pass traits on to their offspring? Why did some traits seem to be passed on and others not? How did the traits of the parents work together in the offspring -- did they compete, or combine? Mendel's work helped answer these questions; unfortunately, Darwin was unaware of Mendel's work during his lifetime.

According to Professor Gustav von Niessl, a staff member of the school where Mendel taught, Mendel thought Darwin's theory was inadequate and "hoped that his own researches would fill this gap in the Darwinian system." (Iltis 1924). Callender (1988) discusses an often misinterpreted paragraph of Mendel's, concerning Gärtner's Transformation experiments.

"The success of transformation experiments led Gärtner to disagree with those scientists who contest the stability of plant species and assume continuous evolution of plant forms. In the complete transformation of one species into another he finds unequivocal proof that a species has fixed limits beyond which it cannot change. Although this opinion cannot be adjudged unconditionally valid, considerable confirmation of the earlier expressed conjecture on the variability of cultivated plants is to be found in the experiments performed by Gärtner." (Mendel 1866, p. 47)

Callender cites a popular interpretation, that Mendel was dissociating himself from Gärtner's position. He argues that Mendel clearly meant the opposite: he gave conditional acceptance to Gärtner's view. Both interpretations ignore the context in which the paragraph appeared. The "earlier expressed conjecture" presumably refers to the following paragraph:

"If one may assume that the development of forms proceeded in these experiments in a manner similar to that in Pisum, then the entire process of transformation would have a rather simple explanation. The hybrid produces as many kinds of germinal cells as there are constant combinations made possible by the traits associated within the hybrid, and one of these is always just like the fertilizing pollen cells." (Mendel 1866, p. 44)

Mendel was arguing that the laws of variability he developed for Pisum could be applied to Gärtner's experiments to explain his results. Without committing himself to one view or the other, he proposed that his laws of variability were in accordance with Gärtner's observations. He referred to his result as the "law valid for Pisum" but he clearly intended it to be generally applicable. The significance Mendel attached to constant hybrids amounted to a partial acceptance of Linnaeus's modified theory of special creation.

"If the compromise be considered complete, in the sense that the hybrid embryo is made up of cells of like kind in which the differences are entirely and permanently mediated, then a further consequence would be that the hybrid would remain as constant in its progeny as any other stable plant variety. (Mendel 1866, p. 42)

He had established that constant hybrids did exist, but his application of that result to the question of the source of actual forms was only tentative.

Mendel never reached a point where he could make a definite conclusion about the role of hybrids in the origin of species. In his publications he was elusive about his personal views, sometimes to the point of confusing his readers, but his entire research program reveals a commitment to a pre-Darwinian view of evolution. He carefully isolated his experiments from the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution, both before and after reading Darwin's theory, in order to study what Darwin called "one of the greatest obstacles to the general acceptance and progress of the great principle of evolution."

Despite his occupation as a priest, Mendel was scientific in his approach to the question of evolution. It would be surprising for a "zealous defender of the faith" in 1866 to consider seriously ideas of evolution and in particular Darwinism (Bishop 1996), but Mendel's environment was uncommonly liberal (Voipio 1990).

Much of Mendel's research concerned hybridism and its role in evolution. He transplanted unusual wild varieties of plants to his garden, and when they failed to converge with the known domestic forms he concluded that environmental influence, as in Lamarckian evolution, could not account for the modification of species (Iltis 1924).

Mendel's experimental design shows careful attention to the work of Kölreuter and Gärtner. He specifically took measures to avoid their mistakes

Bishop (1996) points to Mendel's "population approach" as an influence of a more modern evolutionary view, but Mendel's emphasis on populations was very different from Darwin's. Darwin saw a large population, interacting with every aspect of the environment, as the necessary focus of evolutionary study. Mendel used large numbers not because he thought it was necessary to observe the very mechanism but for the practical purpose of arriving at numerical laws which could provide insight into the mechanism. He wrote of the experiments of his predecessors:

"Thus with a relatively small number of experimental plants the result could be only approximately correct and occasionally could deviate not inconsiderably." (Mendel 1866, p. 40)

He believed that the mechanisms relevant to evolution lay in the organisms themselves, but they could not be directly observed so it was necessary to study the average behaviour of a large group and treat the data statistically.

Actually, the ultimate results of Mendel's work are NOT in oppostition to Darwinian evolution. Take this staement made by Donald J. Melnick the "Director and a founder of the Center for Environmental Research and Conservation and a professor in the departments of anthropology and biological sciences at Columbia University"

Darwin proposed the mechanism of natural selection for the driving force between. Darwin's theory rested on two things he could not prove, first that inherited traits and characteristis are somehow a part of an organisms' physical makeup, and secondly that these traits could somehow be changed.

Mendel's work backed up Darwin's by providing evidence that hereditary traits are the result of "invisible particles".

Mendel's work aslo illuminated the mystery of why some traits appear to skip generations *(recessive vs dominant). It also showed that traits are not diluted by each other. Darwin's second supposition - about mutation - was not confirmed until the discovery of DNA much later in history.

The discovery of DNA also bolstered Mendel's work by providing the "invisible particles" of heredity. The so called Modern Synthesis of evolutionary theory is actually a blend of Mendel and Darwin and other early pioneers in this field.

The unity between Mendel's work and Darwin's work did elude many for quite a while - it is from that time period that many anti - evolutionists draw upon to try and claim that Mendel's work invalidates Darwin's. Of course, that changed a century ago.

Sometimes in science, a particular researcher can be wrong about something. Einstien was wrong about his criticisms of quantum mechanics. He personally could not accept the consequences of quantum mechanics. Yet all of his predictions for the theories of General and Special Relativity have been substantiated. Albert Einstien, a man of vision and insight also proved to be somewhat narrow minded when it came to quantum mechanics. Nobody holds that against him, or uses that fact to try and demolish relativity. Great scientists are not sages or prophets. They can be wrong.

Lord Kelvin is another good example. He was a great pioneer of early science, yet he refused to accept evidence of radiation and radioactive decay.

Did Mendel have to personally agree with all of Darwin's conclussions for both of them to be correct? Absolutly not. Mendel did have a translated copy of Origin of Species. Science is verified through evidence not opinion. There has been an awful lot of research done into genetics and evolution in the last 100 or more years.