Genesis is a lie. Question for christians...

[Notedstrangeperson]

Kirkwhisper: The accepted theory (and there are others) is that species take many thousands, if not millions of years to evolve because because they need a high amount of genetic variety. Mendel spent 20 years working with peas and other plants.

That's why the more distantly related to species are, the fewer genes they have in common.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Just so my comrades will see that I added a P.S. to my above statement and can glean an even more powerful statement by Mendel than I first quoted:

Originally Posted by Assyrian

Sorry, I can't find your Mendel quotation anywhere in the link, where abouts on the page is it?
​

World's Greatest Creation Scientists from Y1K to Y2K

Plus this: "The general acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution and his ideas regarding variation and the inheritance of acquired characters are, in fact, the main reasons for the neglect of Mendel's work, which (in clear opposition to Darwin) pointed to an entirely different understanding of the questions involved."1

Quote: "In his short treatise, Experiments in Plant Hybridization, Mendel incessantly speaks of "constant characters", "constant offspring", "constant combinations", "constant forms", "constant law", "a constant species" etc. (in such combinations the adjective "constant" occurs 67 times in his original paper). He was convinced that the laws of heredity he had discovered corroborated Gärtner's conclusion "that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change".


Gregor Mendel - Father of Genetics

Read it and weep. This debate is over.

P.S. I apologize for the messy quote. It is better read like this:

Mendel (1866) states: "The success of transformation experiments led Gartner 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."

Taken directly from Mendel's work as quoted at: http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/mendel.pdf

 

[Keachian]

"Species do not transform one into the other. They show stability from generation to generation, and my experiments demonstrate that fact. Isn’t anyone listening?" Gregor Mendel (1822-1884), Father of Genetics

Mendel (1866) states: "The success of transformation experiments led Gartner 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."

Taken directly from Mendel's work as quoted at: http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/mendel.pdf

These two quotes are rather different and the second quote comes from this Gregor Mendel's Experiments on plant ... - Gregor Mendel, Alain F. Corcos, Floyd V. Monaghan - Google Books

The conclusion, where the quote is from talks about how Gartner came to the same conclusion he had but also that the "opinion cannot be judged unequivocally valid"

 

[Assyrian]

World's Greatest Creation Scientists from Y1K to Y2K

Plus this: "The general acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution and his ideas regarding variation and the inheritance of acquired characters are, in fact, the main reasons for the neglect of Mendel's work, which (in clear opposition to Darwin) pointed to an entirely different understanding of the questions involved."1

And yet evolutionary biology is quite happy to have hybridisation as one of the ways new species are formed and has long realised Mendel's genetics provided the missing piece in Darwin's theory and explains why new variations don't simply dilute so much they have no effect on fitness. Darwin's influence if probably one of the reasons why biology concentrated on mutations rather than hybridisation, but there is another very obvious explanation if you read the website on Mendel you linked to, it is because hybrids are very difficult to study and without direct genetic comparisons you cannot tell stable hybrid from a clone.

Quote: "In his short treatise, Experiments in Plant Hybridization, Mendel incessantly speaks of "constant characters", "constant offspring", "constant combinations", "constant forms", "constant law", "a constant species" etc. (in such combinations the adjective "constant" occurs 67 times in his original paper). He was convinced that the laws of heredity he had discovered corroborated Gärtner's conclusion "that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change".

Again if you had read that the Mendel link, particularly the second page Mendel in Darwin's Shadow (p. 2) you would realise it was constant characters and forms in the hybrids Mendel was looking for. He wasn't talking about species being constant and hybrids reverting to the original species, but the hybrids being stable.

Gregor Mendel - Father of Genetics

Read it and weep. This debate is over.

lol I told you before your Mendel quotes are irrelevant. You are trying to treat Mendel as a sacred authority whose every word is binding on biology. He is respected for what he discoveries and as a founder of the study of genetics, but the science has developed and grown way beyond Mendel's first beginnings. Proof texts are bad enough in scripture study, but creationists try to take the idea of authoritative proof texts and use them to argue science. It isn't how science works.

P.S. I apologize for the messy quote. It is better read like this:

Mendel (1866) states: "The success of transformation experiments led Gartner 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."

Taken directly from Mendel's work as quoted at: http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/mendel.pdf

I have seen that quote, it is a different translation of Mark Kennedy's sig. It is not however your original Mendel quote, which I presume you cannot trace.

What is interesting is that your new Mendel quote goes on to say:

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 Gartner."
​

It is Gartner who thought he found unequivocal proof, Mendel has reservations and was unsure how wide the validity of Gartners findings was. Oddly, both you and Mark crop the quotation in the same place and leave this out. Again if you had read your original Mendel link you would have seen this very quote discussed.

The whole issue is one of history and the history of science, rather than science itself, creationists want to claim Mendel as one of their own, and seem to play fast and loose with history to do so, but even if they were right it is irrelevant to modern science.

 

[Assyrian]

I think I know where the quote may originally come from, it seems to have originated with your link World's Greatest Creation Scientists from Y1K to Y2K It isn't Mendel who said it, Coppedge writes it differently from actual quotations he gives, it is in italics rather than inverted commas or indented.

Creation Scientists from Y1K to Y2K
Mendel’s words seem intended as a clarion call to observation over speculation: Species do not transform one into the other. They show stability from generation to generation, and my experiments demonstrate that fact. Isn’t anyone listening?
​

It is the forlorn cry 'Isn't any one listening' that seems most out of place. That is modern creationist thinking Mendel is being ignored rather than Mendel himself discussing his findings. Coppedge is writing what he thinks Mendel's lesson is for us today, putting words in Mendel's mouth like a tabloid headline writer '"I am a Love Rat" says Soap Star'. Coppedge doesn't actually claim it is a direct quote from Mendel, he probably didn't even intend for it to be taken that way, but that is how it was picked up, and as it spread through Creationist websites, an attribution to Mendel got tacked on and spread with it. Creationists love a good quote mine but don't often check their sources.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

These two quotes are rather different and the second quote comes from this Gregor Mendel's Experiments on plant ... - Gregor Mendel, Alain F. Corcos, Floyd V. Monaghan - Google Books

The conclusion, where the quote is from talks about how Gartner came to the same conclusion he had but also that the "opinion cannot be judged unequivocally valid"

Of course they are different. That's because they are different quotes from the same man. Not all of the same words were used in the different sources. Is that hard to figure out? Good grief.

Here is yet another source that gives the same statements and a few others equally lethal to Darwinism as quoted directly from Mendels paper of 1866:

"Whether variable hybrids of other plant species show complete agreement in behavior also remains to be decided experimentally; one might assume, however, that no basic difference could exist in important matters since unity in the plan of development of organic life is beyond doubt." (Mendel 1866, p. 43)

Darwin had also argued that the distinction between species and varieties was arbitrary. Mendel accordingly argued that his work with Pisum variety hybrids was relevant to species hybrids as well:

"The hybrids of varieties behave like species hybrids, but possess a still greater inconstancy and a more pronounced tendency to revert to the original forms." (Mendel 1866, p. 38)
​

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."

http://tomclegg.net/mendel
​

P.S. That theistic evolutionists on this thread HATE these statements. They can't give what was asked for so now they seek to destroy the credibility of the quotes. How typically Darwinian.

 

[Keachian]

Of course they are different. That's because they are different quotes from the same man. Not all of the same words were used in the different sources. Is that hard to figure out? Good grief.

P.S. Notice my companions in the faith, they are on the run. They can't give what was asked for so now they seek to destroy the credibility of the quotes. How typically Darwinian.

You have not shown where your first quote is from and as Assyrian says the first is hardly representative of anything he ever said.

Who's on the run, surely not I? Let me tell you something, my faith is not dependent on what you think, I do not have faith in evolution (what a silly thing to have faith in, do I gain salvation from it?) But I do have faith in what Christ accomplished on the Cross and hope for the promise of new life that he gave. You seek to try and say that my faith is tiny because you think I do not believe God created Ex Nihilo, where do you have evidence of this? God created Ex Nihilo, the way he created and the methods he used can be seen throughout creation. God is not confined to some box that you want to place him in.

 

[Montalban]

I was looking into this online and you are half-right, half-wrong.

No. I'm right. They're frauds. And they were shown to be before I had even started school - let alone got into high school

Yes, there were some people who were claiming Haeckel was wrong. For the curious, Haeckel made a comparative drawing of the embryos of various species:

to make a point that there seemed, to him, to be a fundamentally identical embryonic stage. What's the logical thing to do to disprove him? Make your own set of comparative embryonic drawings, right?

One doesn't need to produce a different set to prove him wrong. He was wrong because he came up with not just the drawings but wrong labels. For instance small lines where the human neck would emerge he called "Gill slits" to make them similar to gills on the relative area in fish. But they're not 'gill slits' because they have nothing to do with gills

Inept? Quite. Fradulent? Evolutionary researchers can't be deceiving you if they're as clueless as you are!

Are you insulting me here?

By the way, the fact that progmonk never heard of Haeckel's embryos while Montalban has may be an important datum. Since progmonk is still in university, it is likely that he learned college biology within the last 10 years, while Montalban probably learned it before 1997. This is entirely compatible with the fact that the first proper academic treatment of Haeckel's fraud was in that year.

Firstly, his lack of knowledge does not negate my statement that I learnt this in High School.

I am older than he, I did Biology in 1984, and 1985. I also did a year of pre-History at university in 1986. Haeckel's drawings were already known to be fake.

Haeckel once admitted to his peers that he doctored the drawings, but that confession was forgotten.
Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered

Evolution does not beg the question of how life began any more than chemistry begs the question of how atoms are formed.

False analogy.

As for "what we were taught" being the most important point - what if your instructor was simply wrong?

That's false. It's taught as a high school syllabus, that's approved of by science peers.

I evidenced that it's still being taught as part of evolutionary studies in Biology.

It would help to read the evidence I presented.

However this also doesn't address the fact that the Miller-Urey experiments didn't actually come to the conclusions I was taught that they had.

 

[Montalban]

Depends on your definition of "multicellular",

Indeed. And that's the problem with the article. It's changing the definition of an organism that has many cells to an organism that is made of many organisms!

 

[Montalban]

Earlier I wrote:

The problem with so-called 'transitional' fossils is that they're not a representation of a transition in the sense of showing how one species changes to become another species

An Echidna could be said to be 'transitional' in that one can argue that it has features that show great variation from perhaps two distinct taxonomic groups

Given that 'species' itself is not a set definition anything could therefore be said to bear a resemblance to other groups

 

[shernren]

Are you insulting me here?

No, I am not insulting you here. What I am trying to say is that developmental biologists genuinely did not have a single unified set of embryonic drawings better than Haeckel's until 1997. Hence, they were as clueless as you were.

No. I'm right. They're frauds. And they were shown to be before I had even started school - let alone got into high school

One doesn't need to produce a different set to prove him wrong. He was wrong because he came up with not just the drawings but wrong labels. For instance small lines where the human neck would emerge he called "Gill slits" to make them similar to gills on the relative area in fish. But they're not 'gill slits' because they have nothing to do with gills

Ah, I thought you were taking issue with the actual quality of the drawings themselves. So your problem is with the labels? I can't do much better than to answer with a section from Talk.Origins' excellent article on Haeckel's embryos:

All vertebrate embryos have pharyngeal arches. Because sometimes these structures are referred to by the simpler term "gill slits" in textbooks does not mean that they do not exist or that the homology disappears, although that is the game Wells would like to play.​

Firstly, his lack of knowledge does not negate my statement that I learnt this in High School.

I am older than he, I did Biology in 1984, and 1985. I also did a year of pre-History at university in 1986. Haeckel's drawings were already known to be fake.

As I have already pointed out, while some other biologists in the 1800s did criticize Haeckel, this knowledge was lost for a while. As you yourself say:

Haeckel once admitted to his peers that he doctored the drawings, but that confession was forgotten.
Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered

If Haeckel's admissions could be forgotten, so could the criticisms of his peers. Remember that Mendel's own work was lost for about 40 years. Once again, the fact is that there was no better widely-known set of comparative embryonic photographs or pictures until 1997, which corresponds very nicely with the fact that you were being taught about Haeckel before 1997 while progmonk was not being taught about Haeckel after that.

That's false. It's taught as a high school syllabus, that's approved of by science peers.

I evidenced that it's still being taught as part of evolutionary studies in Biology.

It would help to read the evidence I presented.

However this also doesn't address the fact that the Miller-Urey experiments didn't actually come to the conclusions I was taught that they had.

Yes, you may have learned certain things in a high school syllabus. But do you know who actually sets those?

The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority has many pages detailing their curriculum development process. In one of their PDFs, all the members of the Secondary Science Assessment Group are listed. Guess how many biologists are on the Biology panel? Zero: the closest we get is Prof Bruce Milthorpe, Dean of Science at UTS, who turns out to be a biochemist.

I don't get why the ineptitude of your particular biology teacher should lead you to conclude that all of evolutionary biology is massively flawed. Yes, as a science teacher myself, I find it tragic that your teachers of 1984-1986 failed you and did not give you the stellar science education that all curious students deserve. Some of my own science teachers clearly weren't the best at their trade, grateful though I may be for their effort and care. But concluding from there that evolution itself is false? That's just as tragic.

I suggest you get over your hangups about what you learned in high school and learn the simple lesson that even your teachers may have been wrong. Then let's talk about the Miller-Urey experiments.

 

[shernren]

That does make it sound so simple but anyone knows who done any kind of rearranging you end up with a big mess before things starts to become organize again. There's more to it than just genes and proteins. Adding spider DNA/genes into a human does not create Spider-man.

Which makes it all the more compelling that Chlamydomonas genes added to a defective Volvox mutant did, in fact, fix its problems. It's a telling clue to the evolution of multicellularity.

As your last paper shown there is a cost in forming colonial organism. This is the problem with origin of sex as well.

Yes, there is always cost (in this case, clumped cells mean less nutrient absorption per cell), but there are also benefits (less predation).

Multicellularity had to happen multiple times (for ToE to be true) yet somehow these miracles only happened in the 100+ million years in the past.

Why should multicellularity have to happen multiple times for ToE to be true?

Since creationists are often seen as heretic of science then they have to use and quote evolutionist's work to make a case against evolution. While scientist has to give lip service to ToE & Darwin I'm sure there are some who have serious doubts yet keeps quiet.

Can you think of a single instance in which a creationist made a scientific discovery which was not first discovered by an evolutionist?

As for the Mendel quote:

It is better read like this:

Mendel (1866) states: "The success of transformation experiments led Gartner 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."

Taken directly from Mendel's work as quoted at: http://www.somosbacteriasyvirus.com/mendel.pdf

quite frankly I never got it. Let me parse it for you:

One species can completely transform into another
therefore a species have fixed limits beyond which it cannot change?

That's like looking at a guy crossing a road and saying "See? I bet he hasn't a clue how to walk along the sidewalk."

 

[Montalban]

No, I am not insulting you here. What I am trying to say is that developmental biologists genuinely did not have a single unified set of embryonic drawings better than Haeckel's until 1997. Hence, they were as clueless as you were.

This is simply based on the fact that over time he re-drew them. Not that he was mistaken and that these mistaken pics then formed the basis of lessons.

Ah, I thought you were taking issue with the actual quality of the drawings themselves. So your problem is with the labels?

Oh, please. What a game of semantics.

He drew AND labeled them.

I can't do much better than to answer with a section from Talk.Origins' excellent article on Haeckel's embryos:

All vertebrate embryos have pharyngeal arches. Because sometimes these structures are referred to by the simpler term "gill slits" in textbooks does not mean that they do not exist or that the homology disappears, although that is the game Wells would like to play.​

That's missing the point. To call them 'gill slits' is misleading.

As I have already pointed out, while some other biologists in the 1800s did criticize Haeckel, this knowledge was lost for a while.

It's irrelevant. I was taught in a HSchool curricula using these pics

Yes, you may have learned certain things in a high school syllabus. But do you know who actually sets those?

Normally peers

The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority has many pages detailing their curriculum development process. In one of their PDFs, all the members of the Secondary Science Assessment Group are listed. Guess how many biologists are on the Biology panel? Zero: the closest we get is Prof Bruce Milthorpe, Dean of Science at UTS, who turns out to be a biochemist.

It's irrelevant

I don't get why the ineptitude of your particular biology teacher should lead you to conclude that all of evolutionary biology is massively flawed. Yes, as a science teacher myself, I find it tragic that your teachers of 1984-1986 failed you and did not give you the stellar science education that all curious students deserve. Some of my own science teachers clearly weren't the best at their trade, grateful though I may be for their effort and care. But concluding from there that evolution itself is false? That's just as tragic.

I don't get why this is re-worked to be some kind of lone-wolf teacher. It was in our text books!

I suggest you deal with evidence and acknowledge mistakes were made, and who made them.

If one can't even be critical of these mistakes without apologists offering all manner of re-working of argument and ignoring of evidence it's just a tip of the iceberg to much larger problems in education on evolution.

Because you don't want to deal with these problems I'll give a summation for anyone who wants to read the position so far...

a) Abiogensis was taught as part of evolution. It's totally irrelevant that people here think it has nothing to do with it. The point is I was taught it. I evidenced that it's still on the curicula AND none have addressed the fraud of the Miller-Urey experiments at all... which did not show the formation of the building blocks of life.

b) Haeckel's drawings were used as a tool. They are full of errors and misnomers. This too wasn't a case of a single teacher teaching this.

 

[Papias]

Assyrian wrote:

It is the forlorn cry 'Isn't any one listening' that seems most out of place. That is modern creationist thinking Mendel is being ignored rather than Mendel himself discussing his findings. Coppedge is writing what he thinks Mendel's lesson is for us today, putting words in Mendel's mouth like a tabloid headline writer '"I am a Love Rat" says Soap Star'. Coppedge doesn't actually claim it is a direct quote from Mendel, he probably didn't even intend for it to be taken that way, but that is how it was picked up, and as it spread through Creationist websites, an attribution to Mendel got tacked on and spread with it. Creationists love a good quote mine but don't often check their sources.

Exactly right (though you are plenty generous in saying that Coppedge probably didn't intend it to sound somewhat like a quote).

So, we are still waiting for Kirkwhisper to admit that he:

• posted something that Mendel never said nor wrote, saying that it was a quote from Mendel,
• and then repeated it over and over, insisting that we take that bogus "quote" seriously,
• and then, when pressured repeatedly for a source, cited a page that didn't even have it anyway on that page,
• and that even now, when the whole situation is exposed, hasn't owned up to it.

I'll avoid the otherwise impending generalization.

Papias

 

[Assyrian]

Of course they are different. That's because they are different quotes from the same man.

The 'Isn't anyone listening' quote wasn't by Mendel, or if it is you have failed to provide a reference from Mendel's writings.

Not all of the same words were used in the different sources. Is that hard to figure out? Good grief.

Personally I thought you were describing the 'Isn't anyone listening' when you said.

P.S. I apologize for the messy quote. It is better read like this:
Mendel (1866) states: "The success of transformation experiments...
​

I took it as you saying the 'Isn't anyone listening?' was messy and a better reading was the quote about Gartner, which people had already commented on as a possible garbled source for the 'Isn't anyone listening?' quote. Looking back over your post again the messy quote you referred to is the way the computer chewed up the umlaut in Gärtner's and turned it into Gärtner's. A simple misunderstanding really.

Here is yet another source that gives the same statements and a few others equally lethal to Darwinism

Oh dear, you still think you can quote Mendel as if he was sacred prooftext. Anyway, these really are genuine Mendel quotes. Let's have a look at them.

as quoted directly from Mendels paper of 1866:

"Whether variable hybrids of other plant species show complete agreement in behavior also remains to be decided experimentally; one might assume, however, that no basic difference could exist in important matters since unity in the plan of development of organic life is beyond doubt." (Mendel 1866, p. 43)

You can find all these quotations with slight differences in translation in their original context in Mendel's paper here
Mendel's Paper (English-Collaborative)

Keep an eye on that phrase variable hybrids, it is going to come up again and is important if we are to understand what Mendel was talking about. The 'unity in the plan of development' seems to mean genetics and the expression of traits works the same in different species.

Darwin had also argued that the distinction between species and varieties was arbitrary. Mendel accordingly argued that his work with Pisum variety hybrids was relevant to species hybrids as well:

"The hybrids of varieties behave like species hybrids, but possess a still greater inconstancy and a more pronounced tendency to revert to the original forms." (Mendel 1866, p. 38)
​

Here is the whole paragraph.

It can hardly fail to be of interest to compare the observations made regarding Pisum with the results arrived at by the two authorities in this branch of knowledge, Köreuter and Gärtner, in their investigations. According to the opinion of both, the hybrids in outward appearance present either a form intermediate between the original species, or they closely resemble either the one or the other type, and sometimes can hardly be discriminated from it. From their seeds usually arise, if the fertilization was effected by their own pollen, various forms which differ from the normal type. As a rule, the majority of individuals obtained by one fertilization maintain the hybrid form, while some few others come more like the seed parent, and one or other individual approaches the pollen parent. This, however, is not the case with hybrids without exception. Sometimes the offspring have more nearly approached, some the one and some the other of the two original stocks, or they all incline more to one or the other side; while in other cases they remain perfectly like the hybrid and continue constant in their offspring. The hybrids of varieties behave like hybrids of species, but they possess greater variability of form and more pronounced tendency to revert to the original types.
​

There is your quote in red, but look at the line before it. Mendel is discussing different type of hybrids, stable ones that form new species and variable ones that revert back to one to the original stocks. Your quote is saying that hybrids of varieties tend to revert faster than more distant hybrids. But that is just looking at variable hybrids, it is the stable hybrids Mendel thought played an important role in plant evolution.

Have a look four paragraphs down where Mendel discusses stable hybrids.

We meet with an essential difference in those hybrids which remain constant in their progeny and propagate themselves as truly as the pure species. According to Gärtner, to this class belong the remarkably fertile hybrids Aquilegia atropurpurea canadensis, Lavatera pseudolbia thuringiaca, Geum urbanorivale, and some Dianthus hybrids; and, according to Wichura, the hybrids of the Willow family. For the history of the evolution of plants this circumstance is of special importance, since constant hybrids acquire the status of new species. The correctness of the facts is guaranteed by eminent observers, and cannot be doubted. Gärtner had an opportunity of following up Dianthus Armeria deltoides to the tenth generation, since it regularly propagated itself in the garden.
​

Not only did Mendel think stable hybrids form new species, he though stable hybrids played a specially important role in evolution. Hardly the creationist you want to paint him as. What is also really interesting, he quoted Gärtner as someone who studied stable hybrids too and though they could be remarkably fertile.

But according to creationists Mendel and Gärtner are supposed to be anti-evolutionists and that Mendel and Gärtner's work on hybrids disproved evolution. How can that be, when we have just seem Mendel quoting Gärtner's research in support of evolution through stable hybrids?

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."

You mean Mendel saw his work as contributing to a vital part of Darwin's theory of evolution?

(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."

Mendel's research on hybrids in evolution
​

Mendel is talking about experiments on variable hybrids where successive generations pollinated by a second variety can be completely transformed into the second variety. Some scientists from Linnaeus down had thought the variability possible with variable hybrids could be how all the variation in nature evolved. Gärtner and Mendel's experiments showed that it wasn't. Mendel wasn't claiming they had disproved evolution, but that they had rules out one hypothesis, one mechanism, for how new species formed. Instead of variable hybrids, he though stable hybrids were a significant mechanism for evolution and the origin of new species.

P.S. That theistic evolutionists on this thread HATE these statements. They can't give what was asked for so now they seek to destroy the credibility of the quotes. How typically Darwinian.

Hate these statements? The way you are using them as prooftexts has no credibility in science. But learning more about Mendel is fascinating. He really was a great scientist.

 

[Montalban]

Another fraud demonstration of how evolution works is the bio-morph championed by Richard Dawkins

Fortunately for me this was not something I was subjected to at school.

Even if I don't understand fully all points of an issue, if I see one side using fraud arguments then I feel that the 'deeper' basis of their argument is probably faulty to - else they wouldn't need to resort to such tactics.

 

[shernren]

Another fraud demonstration of how evolution works is the bio-morph championed by Richard Dawkins

Fortunately for me this was not something I was subjected to at school.

Even if I don't understand fully all points of an issue, if I see one side using fraud arguments then I feel that the 'deeper' basis of their argument is probably faulty to - else they wouldn't need to resort to such tactics.

So what would you say when you see creationists using fradulent arguments?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Montalban

"I don't get why this is re-worked to be some kind of lone-wolf teacher. It was in our text books!

That is absolutely correct. I saw them as a student in the 60's. You are telling the truth & you've made a good point on this but he can't handle it.

I suggest you deal with evidence and acknowledge mistakes were made, and who made them.

But they don't deal with the evidence, not honestly. They deal in lies. They believe lies and spout them as lies; take for instance the denial of Mendel's quotes I posted from several different sources. They nit-pick, twist, mangle, and otherwise play semantics to get around the force of Mendel's position. Not accepting their utter failure to meet the challenge of providing observed/observable evidence for the transformation of one type of organism into another organism (over ANY length of time) they decide to attack the quotes of what Mendel said...knowing full well he was a creationist and did not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. How can we know that Mendel said those things and that the quotes represent his true position? Answer: by the preponderance of information available on the subject. But you see, our critics have sold their souls to the devil....er, uh, Darwin in place of Moses as led by the Holy Spirit in Genesis and as supported by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself in the gospels. Even in that they don't care what Jesus said in support of the history that Genesis brings us & they even twist his words to justify their unbelief.

Not only so my friend, but (quote) " Mendel's experiments unambiguously showed that while variation occurred within species, it only occurred within limits. In documented lectures, he refuted thetheory of evolution, stating that the laws of inheritance did not permit limitless change, but only permitted change within definite parameters." Creation Wiki.

Best wishes to you and happy new year.

 

[Montalban]

That is absolutely correct. I saw them as a student in the 60's. You are telling the truth & you've made a good point on this but he can't handle it.

When I evidence stuff and it's re-worked to just my teacher making a mistake then I know that I've touched upon some raw nerves with evolution.

One can't be critical of it without seeing a backlash of irrational argument

But they don't deal with the evidence, not honestly. They deal in lies. They believe lies and spout them as lies; take for instance the denial of Mendel's quotes I posted from several different sources. They nit-pick, twist, mangle, and otherwise play semantics to get around the force of Mendel's position. Not accepting their utter failure to meet the challenge of providing observed/observable evidence for the transformation of one type of organism into another organism (over ANY length of time) they decide to attack the quotes of what Mendel said...knowing full well he was a creationist and did not believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. How can we know that Mendel said those things and that the quotes represent his true position? Answer: by the preponderance of information available on the subject. But you see, our critics have sold their souls to the devil....er, uh, Darwin in place of Moses as led by the Holy Spirit in Genesis and as supported by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself in the gospels. Even in that they don't care what Jesus said in support of the history that Genesis brings us & they even twist his words to justify their unbelief.

Not only so my friend, but (quote) " Mendel's experiments unambiguously showed that while variation occurred within species, it only occurred within limits. In documented lectures, he refuted thetheory of evolution, stating that the laws of inheritance did not permit limitless change, but only permitted change within definite parameters." Creation Wiki.

One of the worse is 'species' which changes all the time - the definition that is. One person put forward here supposed proof of the evolution of a single celled creature into a multi-celled creature.

Best wishes to you and happy new year.

Many thanks.

If you're ever worried about the end of the world, just remember that it's already tomorrow here in Australia.

 

[Montalban]

Evolutionists have always used sly arguments

Darwin used the way pigeon breeders selected traits to give an analogy for the way nature 'selects'.

Only he's confusing a logical thought process with a random event.

Darwin chose as the best descriptor for his theory a tautology; 'survival of the fittest'

If his chosen term was a meaningless phrase then the basis of his argument isn't very good... this isn't to say that evolution did not happen, only that the argument given to support it was flawed.