Genetic expression within Mendelian limitations prevent evolution

[sfs]

One can give him the clearest and most defined expressions of any point and he misses it every time.

Hint: Kingdgom, phylum, class, order, FAMILY, genus, species.

Changes on the species level is now and has always been accepted by creationists as changes 'within the kind'.

You should investigate the history of creationism more. Henry Morris was certainly a creationist -- one of the founders of modern creationism, in fact. Here's what he had to say about speciation:

No New Species.
Charles Darwin is popularly supposed to have solved the problem of "the origin of species," in his famous 1859 book of that title. However, as the eminent Harvard biologist, Ernst Mayr, one of the nation's top evolutionists, has observed:​

"Darwin never really did discuss the origin of species in his On the Origin of Species."2​

Not only could Darwin not cite a single example of a new species originating, but neither has anyone else, in all the subsequent century of evolutionary study.​

"No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it. . . ." 3​

(Quoted from "The Vanishing Case for Evolution", by Henry Morris)

That happens all the time. But what I challenged in the OP has to do with transformations of one organism into a clearly DIFFERENT organsim.

You asked for the transformation of an organism into an "identifiably/classifiably different organism". Organisms of different species are identifiably different organisms; that's why biologists can sort them into different species. Further, species is a kind of classification; members of different species are therefore classifiably different.

Once again, I can only respond to what you actually wrote, not to what you might have meant.

Like flies to perhaps hummingbirds, or worms to snakes, or bacteria to lice, or perhaps rodents to a thylacine or a dog. He doesn't get it. He doesn't wish to get it.

Evolutionary biology predicts that we should not be able to see any of those things. So why are you asking for them? We don't think common descent is true because we can observe the entire history of life in real time. We think it's true because it's the only way anyone has found to explain a vast array of data that we do have.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Yep. Individual x of a certain species is very likely to be extremely similiar compared to its parents and its offspring in the following generation.

Evolution is a very gradual process. One generation at a time.

Evolution does not exist. Period.

You didn't pay attention to the details in the OP and many posts since then.

Nonetheless, best wishes.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

You should investigate the history of creationism more. Henry Morris was certainly a creationist -- one of the founders of modern creationism, in fact. Here's what he had to say about speciationQuoted from "The Vanishing Case for Evolution", by Henry Morris)

You asked for the transformation of an organism into an "identifiably/classifiably different organism". Organisms of different species are identifiably different organisms; that's why biologists can sort them into different species. Further, species is a kind of classification; members of different species are therefore classifiably different.

Once again, I can only respond to what you actually wrote, not to what you might have meant.

Evolutionary biology predicts that we should not be able to see any of those things. So why are you asking for them? We don't think common descent is true because we can observe the entire history of life in real time. We think it's true because it's the only way anyone has found to explain a vast array of data that we do have.

Quite frankly, he's not telling the truth.

But I will quote why...again! Quote: definition of Evolution; a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

Do the rest of you see the word OTHER? He avoids important details like this because unless he does so he has no defense for his ridiculous theory...a belief that is nothing more than a fairy tale for adults. What he is doing is playing semantics with the word 'species'...a word that has about a dozen or more different meanings since the time of Darwin. He may get away with that with uninformed readers but not those of us who have studied this subject in depth.

He still has not given the formula for the divergance of man(homo) with the so-called common ancestor (hominini?). That's because he cannot. What should be easy neither he nor his comrades in pseudo-science can produce.

 

[begt]

How Evolution REALLY Works, Part I - YouTube

This video outlines the basics of evolution.

As chessplayers like myself says sometimes: "it is forced", there's no avoiding it.

Obvious evidence for evolution:

1. DNA: animals and plants share the same genetic code and it creates a perfect hierarchy of evolution. Even if there were no other evidence to be found it would still be enough.

2. Lots of vestigial features. Us humans have the following e.g:

The vermiform appendix is a vestige of the cecum, an organ that would have been used to digest cellulose by humans' herbivorous ancestors.

The tailbone, wisdom teeth (we had larger jaws in the past to chew plant tissue; wisdom teeths do not fit in our small jaws), the plantaris muscle, ear muscles....

3. Fossils: Archeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus, Java man (Homo Erectus Erectus) (and other so called missing links).

 

[sfs]

Quite frankly, he's not telling the truth.

But I will quote why...again! Quote: definition of Evolution; a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations.

Do the rest of you see the word OTHER?

I don't know what point you think you're making here. Every species alive today evolved from a species that lived earlier. That's what evolutionary biology claims. That's what I claim. That's what your quotation is saying: the various types (species, and also genera etc) evolved from types that existed before. You're the one claiming that this hasn't happened.

He avoids important details like this because unless he does so he has no defense for his ridiculous theory...a belief that is nothing more than a fairy tale for adults. What he is doing is playing semantics with the word 'species'...a word that has about a dozen or more different meanings since the time of Darwin. He may get away with that with uninformed readers but not those of us who have studied this subject in depth.

You've studied evolution in depth? How many scientific papers on evolution have you read?

He still has not given the formula for the divergance of man(homo) with the so-called common ancestor (hominini?). That's because he cannot. What should be easy neither he nor his comrades in pseudo-science can produce.

You still haven't told me why there should be such a formula.

Note that by "pseudo-science" Kirkwhisper means what most people know simply as "science". For him, pseudo-science encompasses every major scientific journal in biology, the biology department of every major university and college, the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Society of Human Genetics, the American Society of Tropical Medicine, the National Association of Biology Teachers, all the Nobel prize winners in physiology and medicine, plus the professional societies of physicists, chemists and geologists -- they're all pseudo-scientists, while Kirkwhisper is the real expert.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Not one person has posted what is really necessary to establish the truthfulness of Darwinian evolution although it should be just as easy as...

Stubbornly affirming that bacteria transforms into another variety of bacteria does not prove evolution of one organism into another type of organism. Clinging to the notion that variation within a kind of organism does not prove that the evolution that Darwin wrote of is proof of his theory. Yet they can do no better.

But they reply, "Oh, we've got this fossil and it is so similar to this one...so that proves evolution!" Really? Where is the genetic connection asked for?

Below are two skulls...almost identical so obviously of the same family. Right?

Wrong. The skull on the left is a thylacine, a marsupial now extinct. The skull on the right is a dog, a canine. There is no relation between them either by physical classification or by genetic connection. But if anyone thinks that they can make such a genetic connection then let them try it.

...but coming back to the matter of wheat as depicted above, check this out:

One cannot tell the difference between normal bread-producing wheat and the tares until they are virtually mature. So one 'evolved' from the other, right? No, but they are in the same family, poaceae. One can derive quite a few varieties of both real wheat and the phony 'Darnel' wheat...but what one will never observe nature do: cross wheat with a rose bush and produce rheat. Nor will one ever see nature cause wheat to evolve into cotton or a dandelion...nor anything in between.

The Mendelian limitations are there and there isn't anything the Darwinists can do about it. Those limitations are not going to disappear no matter how much they argue otherwise and no matter how much they cross organisms in search of evidence for their fool theory.



Below is the genetics of the wheat and the crossing of these species is easy and changes are understood:

• Einkorn wheat (T. monococcum) is diploid (AA, two complements of seven chromosomes, 2n=14).
• Most tetraploid wheats (e.g. emmer and durum wheat) are derived from wild emmer, T. dicoccoides. Wild emmer is itself the result of a hybridization between two diploid wild grasses, T. urartu and a wild goatgrass such as Aegilops searsii or Ae. speltoides. The unknown grass has never been identified among now surviving wild grasses, but the closest living relative is Aegilops speltoides. The hybridization that formed wild emmer (AABB) occurred in the wild, long before domestication, and was driven by natural selection.

• Hexaploid wheats evolved in farmers' fields. Either domesticated emmer or durum wheat hybridized with yet another wild diploid grass (Aegilops tauschii) to make the hexaploid wheats, spelt wheat and bread wheat. These have three sets of paired chromosomes, three times as many as in diploid wheat.

Now, where is the formula for the transformation (evolution) of these organisms from non-wheat? What was it (supposedly) before it was wheat?

 

[Kirkwhisper]

... they're all pseudo-scientists, while Kirkwhisper is the real expert.

I can tell I'm getting to him. The insult is intended as a put down but the fact is that I am just one (ex)science teacher among many who hold to the same views. The science I have given here is not original with me.

Actually, it began with creationists like Mendel. There's the real expert. But our resident PhD won't listen to him either.

From the Oxford Journal of Heredity:

Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin

1. B. E. Bishop

Although the past decade or so has seen a resurgence of interest in Mendel's role in the origin of genetic theory, only one writer, L. A. Callender (1988), has concluded that Mendel was opposed to evolution. Yet careful scrutiny of Mendel's Pisum paper, published in 1866, and of the time and circumstances in which it appeared suggests not only that it is antievolutlonary in content, but also that it was specifically written in contradiction of Darwin's book The Origin of Species, published in 1859, and that Mendel's and Darwin's theories, the two theories which were united in the 1940s to form the modern synthesis, are completely antithetical.

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/87/3/205.short

 

[shernren]

"How can trees ever grow twigs from branches? After all, it's not like we ever see two twigs grow together into a branch."

.

 

[sfs]

Extinction is natural and positive then. I know...I am just changing the subject. This is not part of the discussion.

Extinction is certainly natural. Positive? Well, that depends on your criteria.

I would and could agree with all of the findings if there wasn't other variables. In math, I don't know about science, we can use theorems and formulas and use them consistently if all things given are constant. But throw one vairable into the equation and everything changes. You say it is "good enough". If it isn't perfect then it is not good enough.

Of course it isn't perfect: we don't have a fossil from every individual animal that ever lived. We don't have perfect knowledge about anything -- the weather, history, our spouses, God -- and yet we somehow muddle through. And we also manage to actually know things about the world, even if that knowledge isn't perfect.

Now if you say this is the best we have, then that may be true. But there are other factors: weather, predatory action, man, God, water, earthquakes, storms, deformations as opposed to mutations. We do not know completely what or how these may have effected life. Fossils are a snap shot of a moving picture.

So what do we do? We try out different explanations, and see how well they fit the information we do have. We use them to predict other things we haven't seen yet, and then see how well they fared. In other words, we do science. It turns out that evolution does a great job of explaining a wide range of observations about the world and predicting new ones; not just fossils, but millions of pieces of genetic data, data about the distribution of organisms geographically, data about how different living things look and act. It also turns out that every other explanation that's been offered has done a lousy job with the same data. Does this mean we can have absolute certainty that evolution is correct? Of course not, since we can't have absolute certainty about anything. What it does mean is that it's by far the best explanation at hand, and we'll keep using it until something better comes along.

I know you didn't mean it this way but the way you phrased this sounds like all water creatures evolved into land creatures.

No, I didn't mean that.

I told you I was a layman in terms of scienctific terms and stuff. Maybe we can't reproduce between kingdoms, phylums, classes, order, family, genus, but only at the species level. I don't know. And maybe that is what Kirkwhisper is saying. Dogs can breed with wolves, maybe not foxes.

Right. But creationists assert that there are clear dividing lines between different types of living thing ("kinds", they're often called); within those boundaries, evolution happens, but not across those boundaries. When you look at real plants and animals, however, such clear dividing lines don't appear. Are coyotes in with wolves? How about foxes? What about hyenas?

 

[sfs]

Two very important things you said here:
1. (assuming they only marry other Norwegians). Here is where genetic change comes in and where the Bible comes back into play. Noah had three sons. Each son will settle into three different parts of the new world. Each containing their own gene pool, if you will, granted they may be carrying recessive genes. But if they remain in their own gene pool, the dominant gene almost becomes the only choice over 1000 years. Norwegians look alike (blonde hair/blue eyes) due to keeping the same genes in the same area for a long period of time. This is not meant to sound racial, just observatory. Africans have similar traits. Asians have similar traits. Those in between are mixtures of all the genes. Now if they start to intermix again then these genes are intorduced back into the pool, hence dark haired Norwgeian as a bad example.

That's a good attempt at a reasonable explanation, but it fails on a number of counts. First, genetic diversity (in humans and in almost every other animal) looks nothing like it's been through a tight population bottleneck (which is what Noah's Flood would amount to, genetically speaking) within the last few hundred thousand years. Second, the beneficial mutations I've been talking about clearly started as a single copy in the population; more precisely, everyone who has one today inherited it from a single member of a largish population. That's not consistent with one-third of the population (one of Noah's sons) having it to start with. Third, you would have to explain how, if all of the light-skinned descendents of Noah migrated north, some of their descendents then managed to get darker-skinned again when they reached the tropics in the western hemisphere. Fourth, there are just too many localized instances of selected genes for it all to have come from a handful of individuals. Lactose tolerance, for example, happens because of different genetic changes present in different populations around the world. In other respects, these people have genes that look just like their neighbors, but at one spot on chromosome 2, they have a change that makes them able to digest milk. And these genetic variants just happen to be frequent in groups that started cattle herding thousands of years ago.

Keep in mind, we can also observe beneficial mutations very much like these arising in the laboratory. If you start with a sample of genetically identical bacteria (or flies, or malaria parasites, etc) and subject it to a severe stress, like an antibiotic, a mutation that helps alleviate that stress will turn up eventually and spread in subsequent generations because of natural selection.

2. "you move away from the tropics". Geography will cause people to get used to their surroundings. If the sun causes caucasians to get less Vitamin D then your body gets used to it. Or it may cause other problems down the road. Africans and sickle-cell anemia, Euroopean and malaria.

Bodies do indeed get used to things, but none of these are cases where that has happened. We know why Europeans have lighter skin: it's a genetic difference in a particular gene that causes a different amino acid in a protein. If you have that version of the gene, you have lighter skin, regardless of whether you've been exposed to the sun a lot or have never seen the sun. We know that Africans are immune to vivax malaria because they have a particular genetic change at a genetic gene. Again, people with that genetic version are immune regardless of whether they've ever been exposed to the parasite that causes it. (In fact, most Africans never have been exposed to vivax malaria, because the mutation was so successful that it wiped out that kind of malaria in most of Africa.)

And really, what could stop beneficial mutations from taking place? We know the genetic changes that are required for these effects -- they're simple replacements of one base by another -- and we know that this kind of genetic mutation happens all the time. Each of us has several tens of mutations that our parents didn't have. What would stop these particular mutations from occurring?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

One cannot tell the difference between normal bread-producing wheat and the tares until they are virtually mature. So one 'evolved' from the other, right? No, but they are in the same family, poaceae. One can derive quite a few varieties of both real wheat and the phony 'Darnel' wheat...but what one will never observe nature do: cross wheat with a rose bush and produce rheat. Nor will one ever see nature cause wheat to evolve into cotton or a dandelion...nor anything in between.

Interestingly, speciation and hybridization is much easier in plants than it is in animals. As such it's possible to create intergeneric hybrids - between two different genus. I've never heard if a rose-wheat hybrid, but I've heard of a Rabbage (radish x cabbage).

As far as I know, inter-genus species are not found in animals. If they could, humans and chimpanzees could easily interbreed.

Below are two skulls...almost identical so obviously of the same family. Right?

Wrong. The skull on the left is a thylacine, a marsupial now extinct. The skull on the right is a dog, a canine. There is no relation between them either by physical classification or by genetic connection. But if anyone thinks that they can make such a genetic connection then let them try it.

This is an example of convergent evolution - unrelated species having the same biological traits.

 

[sfs]

I can tell I'm getting to him. The insult is intended as a put down

It's not an insult. I'm just pointing out that what you're calling pseudo-science is the science that most people know about. Don't you think people should know that?

but the fact is that I am just one (ex)science teacher among many who hold to the same views. The science I have given here is not original with me.

The people who don't share your views are the ones who are actually doing the science, however -- sequencing the genomes, finding the risk alleles for disease, tracing the history of human populations, identifying species in the wild.

Actually, it began with creationists like Mendel. There's the real expert. But our resident PhD won't listen to him either.

From the Oxford Journal of Heredity:

Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin

1. B. E. Bishop

Although the past decade or so has seen a resurgence of interest in Mendel's role in the origin of genetic theory, only one writer, L. A. Callender (1988), has concluded that Mendel was opposed to evolution. Yet careful scrutiny of Mendel's Pisum paper, published in 1866, and of the time and circumstances in which it appeared suggests not only that it is antievolutlonary in content, but also that it was specifically written in contradiction of Darwin's book The Origin of Species, published in 1859, and that Mendel's and Darwin's theories, the two theories which were united in the 1940s to form the modern synthesis, are completely antithetical.

Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin

I have no idea whether Mendel opposed Darwin's theory or not, and not much interest in the matter either. He certainly should have opposed it when it came to heredity, since Darwin was clearly wrong on the subject. Both Darwin and Mendel were right about some things and wrong about some things. Biology has moved a long way past them in the last hundred-plus years, and we now know vastly more about both heredity and evolution than either did. Evolution isn't a religion: we don't have holy scriptures, and the only authority anyone has comes from being proved right.

 

[Assyrian]

Below are two skulls...almost identical so obviously of the same family. Right?

Wrong. The skull on the left is a thylacine, a marsupial now extinct. The skull on the right is a dog, a canine. There is no relation between them either by physical classification or by genetic connection. But if anyone thinks that they can make such a genetic connection then let them try it.

The same argument came up in the Creationist textbook Of Pandas and People. Here is The National Center for Science Education’s anaylsis of the thylacine/wolf claim.

Excursion Chapter 5: Homology | NCSE
The Dog, The Wolf And The Thylacine (Tasmanian Wolf)

In the caption to Pandas' Figure 5-2, it is claimed that the wolf skull is nearly identical to that of the Tasmanian wolf and much less similar to that of the dog. The accompanying text claims that the two wolves are "superficially almost identical." Actually, by looking carefully at the drawings of the three skulls, it is obvious that the dog and wolf share more specific features that the wolf and the Tasmanian wolf. One of the convergent similarities of the two forms is the carnassial teeth, the broad blade-like teeth in the upper and lower jaws that acts like scissors to slice flesh. In the wolf and dog (as in all placental carnivores) it is the last upper premolar and the first lower molar that are so modified. The other molars are reduced in size and act as crushing teeth. In contrast it is the last four molar teeth in both jaws of the Tasmanian wolf that are modified as carnassials. Clearly the carnassials of placental carnivores and the Tasmanian wolf are not homologous. In addition, the skull of the Tasmanian wolf has four molars (placentals never have more than three), only three premolars (placentals have up to four), holes in the palate, posteriorly expanded nasal bones, an alisphenoid tympanic wing flooring the middle ear, the involvement of the jugal at the edge of the glenoid fossa for articulation of the lower jaw, broad extension of the lachrymal bone onto the face of the skull and mesially enlarged angular process of the dentary (lower jaw), features which it shares with most other marsupials (Archer, 1984). In addition, the teeth appear to be homologous to the placental milk teeth; the only marsupial tooth that is replaced in life is the third premolar. Taking all these characters together, anyone can easily distinguish between the skulls of a wolf and thylacine (Figure 5.1). Denton's claim (Denton, 1986, p. 178) that only a skilled zoologist can distinguish them is nonsense.
Of course, the Tasmanian wolf has the reproductive anatomy, physiology and embryogeny characteristic of all marsupials. Like all other marsupials, it has a relatively small brain with no corpus callosum connecting the two cerebral hemispheres and exhibits no pack or herd organization (Bergamini, 1964, pp. 80, 84). At most it hunted in pairs. Finally, serological tests based on albumen recovered from dried museum skins (the Tasmanian wolf is extinct, the last known live specimen died in the Hobart zoo in 1934) indicate that it is closely related to another groups of Australian marsupials, the dasyurids (Archer, 1984; Sarich et al, 1982). In general proportions it is similar to dasyurids and differs from the wolf in virtually all structural features relating to the pursuit carnivore role (Keast, 1982). The live Tasmanian wolf, with its striped back, long tapered tail and relatively short legs, looked like a strange wolf indeed (see Park, 1985). All biologists, including the pre-evolutionary 19th century anatomists classified the Tasmanian wolf as a marsupial. Pandas gives the impression that there is something wrong with this classification—that it is an arbitrary evolutionist whim—but never explicitly gives an alternate creationist view.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

Where are the genetic connections? I am still waiting.

 

[Papias]

Kirkwhisper wrote:

Actually, it began with creationists like Mendel. There's the real expert. But our resident PhD won't listen to him either.

Sure he did. As sfs pointed out, Mendel has been listened to, and is often right and sometimes wrong. The difference that you don't seem to understand is that we aren't treating science literature like scripture - out of date verses carry little weight, especially when other bodies of evidence show how the real world is.

But speaking of "listening" to Mendel, are you referring to this quote, which you quoted "about five times" ?

Kirkwhisper wrote:

"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

Why are you, like the other neo-Darwinists on this thread avoiding Mendel? I have quoted him about five times.

post #179, here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7608849-18/

Still unanswered:

Kirkwhisper wrote:

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.

So Kirkwhisper - are you saying that if we surmise that a given person held a given general view, based on "the preponderance of information available on the subject" (even though Assyrian showed that the basis for thinking he held that extreme view was based on quote-mining in the first place), that we can then make up quotes that we would have liked him to say, and then claim that he said them?

I'm still trying to figure out your position on that quote, and your approach in what is allowed in quoting people, based on that example.

Papias

​

 

[Assyrian]

Where are the genetic connections? I am still waiting.

Not sure anybody knows what you are asking for.

 

[Kirkwhisper]

I took papias off ignore to see if what he said merits an answer.

There's only one thing that needs answering:

So Kirkwhisper - are you saying that if we surmise that a given person held a given general view, based on "the preponderance of information available on the subject" (even though Assyrian showed that the basis for thinking he held that extreme view was based on quote-mining in the first place), that we can then make up quotes that we would have liked him to say, and then claim that he said them?

I'm still trying to figure out your position on that quote, and your approach in what is allowed in quoting people, based on that example.

Is that the best he can do? Like his comrades in unbelief and error he can't give the genetic formula answering the challenge in the OP so he questions Mendels words, never mind the fact that I got them directly from his paper in 1866, pps 36, 46,47.

...and never mind the fact that I quoted a number of different secular sources, among whom are evolutionists who are honest enough to admit that Mendel was anti-Darwin.

Perhaps he missed it. Perhaps he missed this also:

From the Oxford Journal of Heredity:






Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin

1. B. E. Bishop

Although the past decade or so has seen a resurgence of interest in Mendel's role in the origin of genetic theory, only one writer, L. A. Callender (1988), has concluded that Mendel was opposed to evolution. Yet careful scrutiny of Mendel's Pisum paper, published in 1866, and of the time and circumstances in which it appeared suggests not only that it is antievolutlonary in content, but also that it was specifically written in contradiction of Darwin's book The Origin of Species, published in 1859, and that Mendel's and Darwin's theories, the two theories which were united in the 1940s to form the modern synthesis, are completely antithetical.

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/87/3/205.short

But it goes directly to Mendel's statements which anyone can read for themselves

Quote: "In this generation there reappear, together with the dominant characters, also the recessive ones with their peculiarities fully developed, and this occurs in the definitely expressed average proportion of 3:1, so that among each 4 plants of this generation 3 display the dominant character and one the recessive. This relates without exception to all the characters which were investigated in the experiments. The angular wrinkled form of the seed, the green color of the albumen, the white color of the seed-coats and the flowers, the constriction of the pods, the yellow color of the unripe pod, of the stalk, of the calyx, and of the leaf venation, the umbel-like form of the inflorescence, and the dwarfed stem, all reappear in the numerical proportion given, without any essential alteration. Transitional forms were not observed in any experiment." (emphasis in the original)...followed by this (in the Oxford Journal):

[Hugo de Vries, one of Mendel's "rediscoverers,"

​

later commented: "The lack of transitional forms between any two simple antagonistic characters in the hybrid is perhaps the best proof that such characters are well delimited units" (de Vries).](from the Oxford Journal of Heredity, p.211).​

One can read Mendels paper in its entirety in his own words at:​

Mendel's Paper (English - Annotated)​

and see that all the quotes I made but one are found there in that particular paper.

Quite frankly, friends, I get weary of telling them the same things over and over again while he and his companions in denial persistently deny the facts - which is one of the big reasons why he has been on ignore. So now he goes back on ignore and he is going to stay that way.​

 

[Papias]

Kirkwhisper wrote:

One can read Mendels paper in its entirety in his own words at:​

Mendel's Paper (English - Annotated)​

and see that all the quotes I made but one are found there in that particular paper.

Um, earth to Kirkwhisper..... The only quote I asked about was that one that you now seem to be admitting isn't in the paper you cited. Just for the fun of it, I ran a search on that whole paper, and it's not in there - but I think you already knew that. Here is that quote again:

Kirkwhisper wrote:

"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
​

It appears that you posted a bunch of unrelated information as if it would distract us from the fact that you posted a fabricated quote, and still won't admit it. With behavior like that, do you really think you are convincing anyone?


Papias

 

[Kirkwhisper]

The Reason Why The Darwinists Cannot Provide the Genetic Formula as challenged in the OP:

The tips of the branches are real. The dotted lines are imaginary. They could not give the formula to ANY degree except that which is within the species ...or between hybrid creating genus relatives. That's it.

Here is a pro-evolution chart. One can find them easy on the internet:

But again, the tips of the branches are real in the fossil record, while the trunk and branches themselves are imaginary. No one knows how, still less can evolutionists explain how a one-celled organism formed in the first place, much less can they explain how it became the source of all the millions of varities of life on earth.

It's a huge joke and it does not befit intelligent or educated people to believe in it.

I think we have covered the bases here.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

No one knows how, still less can evolutionists explain how a one-celled organism formed in the first place, much less can they explain how it became the source of all the millions of varities of life on earth.

It's a huge joke and it does not befit intelligent or educated people to believe in it.

Yes they can - it's available to anyone who's interested in reading about it.

It's also strange that a man who complains about evolution being nothing more than "Orwellian brainwashing" constantly repeats himself and never answers any posts which contradict his arguments.