Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"Species do not transform one into the other. They show stability from generation to generation, and my experiments demonstrate that fact. Isnt 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
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.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
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.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 GÃÆärtner's conclusion "that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change".
lol
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.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
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.
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.
No. I'm right. They're frauds. And they were shown to be before I had even started school - let alone got into high schoolI was looking into this online and you are half-right, half-wrong.
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 gillsYes, 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?
Are you insulting me here?Inept? Quite. Fradulent? Evolutionary researchers can't be deceiving you if they're as clueless as you are!
Firstly, his lack of knowledge does not negate my statement that I learnt this in High School.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.
False analogy.Evolution does not beg the question of how life began any more than chemistry begs the question of how atoms are formed.
That's false. It's taught as a high school syllabus, that's approved of by science peers.As for "what we were taught" being the most important point - what if your instructor was simply wrong?
Earlier I wrote:
Are you insulting me here?
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
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
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.
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.
As your last paper shown there is a cost in forming colonial organism. This is the problem with origin of sex as well.
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.
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.
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
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.
Oh, please. What a game of semantics.Ah, I thought you were taking issue with the actual quality of the drawings themselves. So your problem is with the labels?
That's missing the point. To call them 'gill slits' is misleading.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.
It's irrelevant. I was taught in a HSchool curricula using these picsAs I have already pointed out, while some other biologists in the 1800s did criticize Haeckel, this knowledge was lost for a while.
Normally peersYes, you may have learned certain things in a high school syllabus. But do you know who actually sets those?
It's irrelevantThe 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 this is re-worked to be some kind of lone-wolf teacher. It was in our text books!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.
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.
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.Of course they are different. That's because they are different quotes from the same man.
Personally I thought you were describing the 'Isn't anyone listening' when you said.Not all of the same words were used in the different sources. Is that hard to figure out? Good grief.
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.Here is yet another source that gives the same statements and a few others equally lethal to Darwinism
You can find all these quotations with slight differences in translation in their original context in Mendel's paper hereas 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)
Here is the whole paragraph.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)
You mean Mendel saw his work as contributing to a vital part of Darwin's theory of evolution?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."
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.(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
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.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.
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.
Montalban
"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.
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.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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?