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

[The Lady Kate]

Well holy cow, now we are not just moving goal posts around we are moving the entire soccer field about. Speciation is not evolution, since when?

Since YECs ran out of straws to grasp at?

Hehe. I just did a google seach on " speciation is not evolution." it seems that a lot of creationist websites are now making that claim. All I can say is WOW.

Which is one thing more than I can say... I'm speechless that this nonsense has actually spread.

 

[nolidad]

Can you back that up ? Or, are you just acknowledging that "yeah speciation happens ok, but I still refuse to accept evolution".

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

It is not creationists that moved the goalpost here- it is secular evolutionists who created a whole new playing field!!

Today we have any change occuring in all life as "the product of evolution". Evolution has become the equivalent of the Star Wars 'force"-- it encompasses all and guides and moves all life. Why eventhe definition of science has changed! It used to be the search for truth in the universe, now it is the search for truth by naturalistic means. I know I studied evolution before many on these threads were probably even born and know the changes made.

Speciation is predicted by both the evolutionary model and the creation model of life. Speciation when it occursd naturally is just basically a recombining of preexistent genetic material within a kind. Mice still produce mice- just a different kind of mice.

Evolution needs to answer the fish to lizard to bird scenario with more then just paper theories and debunked myths.

 

[Donkeytron]

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

It is not creationists that moved the goalpost here- it is secular evolutionists who created a whole new playing field!!

Today we have any change occuring in all life as "the product of evolution". Evolution has become the equivalent of the Star Wars 'force"-- it encompasses all and guides and moves all life. Why eventhe definition of science has changed! It used to be the search for truth in the universe, now it is the search for truth by naturalistic means. I know I studied evolution before many on these threads were probably even born and know the changes made.

Speciation is predicted by both the evolutionary model and the creation model of life. Speciation when it occursd naturally is just basically a recombining of preexistent genetic material within a kind. Mice still produce mice- just a different kind of mice.

Evolution needs to answer the fish to lizard to bird scenario with more then just paper theories and debunked myths.

Howd that non-naturalistic science work out?

 

[notto]

Evolution needs to answer the fish to lizard to bird scenario with more then just paper theories and debunked myths.

It has answered the scenario with multiple independent lines of evidence that lead to the conclusion of common descent.

You are familiar with these lines of evidence, right?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

did you have a specific fish to lizard to bird scenario in mind that you consider just a paper theory or debunked myth? What research are you referring to? Where did you read it? What have you done to become familiar with the evidence used to come to the conclusions you dismiss? What evidence do you use to dismiss it?

Please be specific.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Here is a brief list of major universities that have entire departments (within their Science Faculties) devoted to teaching evolutionary thoery and conducting innovative research into evolution.

Are all these scientists and graduate students grossly misled, or just plain stupid? Maybe it's a conspiracy?

And if it wasn't good science, don't you think all the other scientists in other departments point that out ot them?

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University
www.eeb.princeton.edu/

Harvard University - Department of Organismic & Evolutionary Biology
www.oeb.harvard.edu/

Cornell universtiy Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
www.eeb.cornell.edu

Rice Universtiy Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
eeb.rice.edu/

University of California, Irvine Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
ecoevo.bio.uci.edu

UCLA Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
www.eeb.ucla.edu/



Yale Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
www.eeb.yale.edu

The Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
eebweb.arizona.edu/

Oxford, Evolutionary BIology Group
evolve.zoo.ox.ac.uk

University of Tennessee, Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
eeb.bio.utk.edu/

Tulane University Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
www.tulane.edu

Brown University Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
www.brown.edu/Departments/EEB/

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"

 

[notto]

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.

So why is it taught at Christian institutions?

Where does it attempt to lead people from faith and belief in the one true God? I must have missed that in my studies or the technique wasn't very effective.

 

[Gwenyfur]

So why is it taught at Christian institutions?

Where does it attempt to lead people from faith and belief in the one true God? I must have missed that in my studies or the technique wasn't very effective.

The church was the one to originally grab onto evolution...as for you...well you apparently did miss something in your studies....you missed the power and majesty of the L-rd G-d of the Abraham Isaac and Jacob

 

[notto]

well you apparently did miss something in your studies....you missed the power and majesty of the L-rd G-d of the Abraham Isaac and Jacob

How so? What would lead you to that conclusion about me? Why make comments like this (even with your winky). Why not simply answer the question?

Where does it attempt to lead people from faith and belief in the one true God?

Both Darwin and I must have missed that part. Can't you point out to us where it does this?

 

[Athene]

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.

Actually the opposite is true, it's not evolution and the study of which leads people away from God, it's Kent Hovind and all the rest of the YEC ID crew who insist that black is white, and 2+2=5 in their mad efforts to twist science into a theory compatible with the biblical account.

You are probably not going to believe this but there isn't a scientists agenda hell bent on converting all christians to atheism, most scientists don't care . . . .and I can say this because I am one.

 

[Deamiter]

Indeed, I went to Bethel University (a very conservative school where Christianity is required of all professors), and they taught naturalistic evolution. Quite frankly, you can't teach Biology WITHOUT it. Although, I suppose you can argue that they're only teaching MICRO-evolution, nobody has ever found a mysterious force that somehow prevents small changes from accumulating into large changes.

Some creationists have repeatedly said that pre-existing genes can account for all changes and speciation that's observed. So I wonder, what happens when a cosmic ray hits a cell and causes a mutation? This happens at least 2-4 times in germ cells per generation (and every day in your body) so it's not uncommon.

Suddenly you have a gene that's slightly different -- it wasn't pre-existing! And the vast majority of these are neutral as the vast majority don't directly (or immediately) affect coding DNA. Even those that affect coding DNA are usually neutral. Start a thread on it if you're interested, and we can pull up some sources.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

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

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.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

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"

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

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

I can back it up, if you want to talk about how Mendelian Genetics is opposed to Darwinism, I'm up for it. Speciation is related to interbreeding and when species can no longer interbreed they are considered seperate species. Mendel did address the limits of the evolution of one species into an altogether different one, see my signiture.

 

[mark kennedy]

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

I think you should quote that passage in context:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creations of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because althought they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futitile in their thoughts, and their fooolish hearts were darkened. Profesing to be wise they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-and birds and four footed animals and creeping things."

(Romans 1:18-23)

Any interest in how this passage continues?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

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"

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.

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.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

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

Ok Mark, I hope that you are up for it. And you will need more then a single out of context quote to support yourself.

According to Dr. M. Hewlett, Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology
University of Arizona there is no no opposition between Mendel and Darwin (read the whole webpage too).

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

and

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

and very interstingly

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

No conflict there, and this guy makes a living studying biology.


Mendel was one of the first scientists to truely come up with a sound experimental design. He set limits. He studied only existing variation in terms of hereditiy. He deliberatly excluded anything that would have been the result of a mutation, or anything novel. He did not do this to "oppose evolutionary ideas" as many creationists claim. His work studied only heredity and variation and therefore cannot be used to remark on mutation anymore then a study on baby formulae vs breast milk can be used to remark on nutrition in dog food.

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

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.

 

[Donkeytron]

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

Bahahaha reps. I guess leaving that part out was a typo.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

If funny that if Mendel's work is so much in opposition with the formulation of evolutionary theory that evolutionists continually regard Mendel's work are being an important development in creating the modern theory of evolutionl

From PBS

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.

Now here is a very interesting evolutionist website that kind of dispells Mark's assertions.
I would encourage people to read the whole website but here are a few quotes which I hope you will put into context by reading the website (oops I repeated myself).

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).

While Mendel was influenced and inspired by Gartner's work, he was not particularly impressed with the quality of tha research

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.

Over to you Mark.

 

[mark kennedy]

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"

Good quote, I think I will just agree that this is the a widely held view.

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.

Darwin believed in a now defunct theory called the blending of characteristics:

"Certainly no clear line of demarcation has as yet been drawn between species and sub-species- that is, the forms which in the opinion of some naturalists come very near to, but do not quite arrive at, the rank of species: or, again, between sub-species and well-marked varieties, or between lesser varieties and individual differences. these differences blend into each other by an insensible series; and a series impresses the mind with the idea of an actual passage. "

(Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, ch. 2)

As a functional theory of origins blending of characteristics is completly flawed.

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

It did nothing of the sort, Dawinism was popular but never contributed anything to actual science. Medels work was rediscovered at the turn of the century and the 'elementum' he describes was actually observed. It came down to the Chromosomes and he was describing the crossing over of genes during meiosis. This led to the discovery of DNA a half a century later and the biochemistry of life vindicated the work of Mendel the entire time.

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.

Darwin did not use the term mutations, he described monstrocities.

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.

Actually it is a reconciliation of two conflicting paradigms, or don't you know what a synthesis is? Darwinism was popular but Mendel's work had resulted in not one but two scientific laws. Darwinians could not give up the single common ancestor model so they had to redefine essential elements of evolutionary theory. This coup of true scientific research is a sham, Darwinism should be removed from evolutionary biology. It distorts what is being directly observed and demonstrated by superimposing an a priori assumption of universal descent. Without a genetic basis these assumptions lack any empirical support.

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.

Nothing has changed, Darwinism and Mendelian genetics requires mental gymnastics to be reconcilled. This was not settled a century ago, in fact the Darwinian synthesis started sometime in the 1930s. Mendel was never reconcilled to Darwin, it was Darwinism that was trying to reconcile itself to Mendelian genetics. It has failed dramatically and the only reason people won't admit it is because the alternative is unacceptable.

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.

There was a book published called '100 scientists say Einstein is wrong', or something like that. Einstein was asked about this and he said, when you think about it, it only takes one. I allways liked that quip and I understand where he is coming from. Einstein could not come up with a unified theory of physics. Hawkins has said that this was one of the biggest disappointments of his career, they couldn't do it either. String theory and it's compliment M theory are going to run their course as well.

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.

I don't know anything about Lord Kelvin but if he opposed the supposition of absolute dating he is my hero.

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.

Actually, I have a list of ideas how Darwinism and Mendelian genetics can be reconcilled. It would stop the Creation science movement as well as Intelligent Design in their tracts. Just eliminate the single common ancestor model that is being superimposed on real science and the problem is solved. So what do you think of my proposed solution?

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I think a lot of what you say is correct. Darwin certainly was not right about everything, and he did not "do the math" to make his thoery more sound. Heck, Darwin was not even the first to propose natural selection. However, to say that

Dawinism was popular but never contributed anything to actual science

is wrong. His work compelled many to study evolution and give it more credibility. Evolutonary theory does not hinge on Charles Darwin. In reality he could have been 90% wrong and it doesn't matter. It is the cumulative work of those who studied and continue to study evolution that matter.

Blended characteristcs do occure for triats that require more then one gene, like skin color. Nevertheless, if Darwin was wrong about the heredity of traits it's not suprising since there was no knowledge of gentetics at his time.

I like the quote about Einstein BTW, I will have to remember it.

I know that many YEC's "like" Lord Kelvin, but they should realize that Kelvin kept revising his estimate for the age of the earth up to 20 million years old in fact. In addition, he stated that he would be willing to revise the age of the earth moreso if new evidence came to light (which was radioactive decay). He refused to accept radiation no so much because of it's consequences to the age of the earth, but to Kelvin's assertion that everything about physics had been discovered already (except for what he refered to as "two clouds on the horizon" - being the speed of light and blackbody radiation). Of course as we all know insight into these phenomenon led to quantum mechanics and relativity.