• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Science Disproves Evolution


Mendel’s Laws


Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations occurring within species. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, such as in the dog family. A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation (a). Breeding experiments (b) and common observations (c) have also confirmed these boundaries.

a. Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 812.

Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently proposed the theory of organic evolution slightly before Charles Darwin, was opposed to Mendel’s laws of genetics. Wallace knew Mendel’s experiments showed that the general characteristics of an organism remained within distinct boundaries. In a letter to Dr. Archdall Reid on 28 December 1909, Wallace wrote:

“But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever varying conditions.” James Marchant, Letters and Reminiscences (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1916), p. 340.

b. “Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities.” Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 55.

“All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.” William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 184–185.

“A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be produced.” Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p. 96.

Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Ipswich, Massachusetts: Gambit, 1971), p. 36.

William J. Tinkle, Heredity (Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1967), pp. 55–56.

c. “...the distinctions of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 322.

“Indeed, the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature have been self-evident for centuries, even to non-biologists.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 105.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences6.html#wp1072162]
 
Hellbound said:
I'm a Last Thursdayist. The entire universe was actually created last Thursday, compelte with all your memories, apparent, history, etc.

It gets recreated every Thursday, so it was always created last Thursday.
Click to expand...

I'm a solipsist so all of you only exist in my imagination and I'm getting bored.
 
Pahu said:

Mendel’s Laws


Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations occurring within species. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different
Click to expand...


ok you started off well there by mentioning mendels laws, but you neglected to mention that mendel only experimented with pea plants, try as he might, he couldn't produce anything but pea plants

why is that a surprise to you, obviously if you understood how evolution works it wouldn't be, when you get to the tip of the tree you only have a limited amount of genes left to play with.....

do you understand this or not ?
Brown clearly doesn't,

the rest of your post is quote mines which are all incorrect, youre trying to claim that you can't produce different sizes and breeds from a parent group
So how do you explain dogs, from chichuaua's to great danes all bred from the wolf, we know that God didn't create all those different breeds because they were all created by man during the holocene, something which you are trying to claim is impossible
so basically you just got pwned by a dog
:p

this thread has your name on it
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=189055
you are unable to answer it arent you
Your god was a negro, prove he wasnt
:p
 
Hellbound said:
I'm a Last Thursdayist. The entire universe was actually created last Thursday, compelte with all your memories, apparent, history, etc.

It gets recreated every Thursday, so it was always created last Thursday.
Click to expand...

I thought you called yourselves Groundhog Day Adventists.
 
Pahu said:

Mendel’s Laws


Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations occurring within species. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, such as in the dog family. A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation (a). Breeding experiments (b) and common observations (c) have also confirmed these boundaries.
a. Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 812.

Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently proposed the theory of organic evolution slightly before Charles Darwin, was opposed to Mendel’s laws of genetics. Wallace knew Mendel’s experiments showed that the general characteristics of an organism remained within distinct boundaries. In a letter to Dr. Archdall Reid on 28 December 1909, Wallace wrote:
“But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever varying conditions.” James Marchant, Letters and Reminiscences (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1916), p. 340.
Click to expand...

OMG! Mendel law! 1916!
What cutting edge science!

That's actually more interesting that it seems. Indeed, back when genetic become more wide spread, some people argued that it put the theory of evolution to rest...
Because evolution would be limited to selecting from a unvariable allelic pool, there would be a limit to its 'creativity'... This truly was one of the biggest testable, falsifiable, prediction of the theory of evolution...

But, already by that time, Thomas Hunt Morgan (he conducted his experiments in 1911) had shown that the Mendelian law were not perfect and knew exceptions... It was later shown that it was due to mutations in the genomes introducing new information... And so, the prediction of the theory of evolution bore true, in a rather triumphant way...




b. “Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities.” Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 55.

“All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.” William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 184–185.

“A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be produced.” Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p. 96.

Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Ipswich, Massachusetts: Gambit, 1971), p. 36.

William J. Tinkle, Heredity (Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1967), pp. 55–56.
Click to expand...

Yeeeeah...
Random assertion by creationists are so freaking convincing...

Obviously, selection is limited by time and the allelic diversity within a population... Sure, over time, new alleles will be produced by random mutation that you can then select... This is where we got sweet bananas from...

But mutations are rare and evolution is a slow process. And mutations are even less likely to happened in a smaller population such as an agricultural one...
After all, we only started agriculture about 10,000 years ago (and certainly did not practice systematic selective breeding until a century or so ago) which is insignificant in term of evolutionary time...

Nonetheless, if you look at agricultural species today and compared them to their wild ancestor, the contrast are actually quite striking...
To give but two example, the goldfish was the product of selective breeding of the Prussian carp and the horse was selected enough that many scientist not classify it into its own species...



c. “...the distinctions of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 322.

“Indeed, the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature have been self-evident for centuries, even to non-biologists.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 105.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences6.html#wp1072162]
Click to expand...

Yeeeeah, more assertion.
I mean, Brown is just brushing away all the evidence that prove him wrong and just claim "I am still not convinced"...

But whatever... You can argue anything by ignoring the evidence that are inconvenient... By the way, the earth is flat and all this space picture are just photoshoped... Also the sailor and pilot and everybody that claim to have circumnavigated are just pawns of the 'big circula' conspiracy... And any evidence you bring me will be similarly tainted...
 
Pahu said:

Mendel’s Laws


Mendel’s laws of genetics and their modern-day refinements explain almost all physical variations occurring within species. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, such as in the dog family. A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation (a). Breeding experiments (b) and common observations (c) have also confirmed these boundaries.

a. Monroe W. Strickberger, Genetics, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1976), p. 812.

Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently proposed the theory of organic evolution slightly before Charles Darwin, was opposed to Mendel’s laws of genetics. Wallace knew Mendel’s experiments showed that the general characteristics of an organism remained within distinct boundaries. In a letter to Dr. Archdall Reid on 28 December 1909, Wallace wrote:

“But on the general relation of Mendelism to Evolution I have come to a very definite conclusion. This is, that it has no relation whatever to the evolution of species or higher groups, but is really antagonistic to such evolution! The essential basis of evolution, involving as it does the most minute and all-pervading adaptation to the whole environment, is extreme and ever-present plasticity, as a condition of survival and adaptation. But the essence of Mendelian characters is their rigidity. They are transmitted without variation, and therefore, except by the rarest of accidents, can never become adapted to ever varying conditions.” James Marchant, Letters and Reminiscences (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1916), p. 340.

b. “Every series of breeding experiments that has ever taken place has established a finite limit to breeding possibilities.” Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), p. 55.

“All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.” William R. Fix, The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 184–185.

“A rule that all breeders recognize, is that there are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be produced.” Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), p. 96.

Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Ipswich, Massachusetts: Gambit, 1971), p. 36.

William J. Tinkle, Heredity (Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1967), pp. 55–56.

c. “...the distinctions of specific forms and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1927), p. 322.

“Indeed, the isolation and distinctness of different types of organisms and the existence of clear discontinuities in nature have been self-evident for centuries, even to non-biologists.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (London: Burnett Books, 1985), p. 105.

[From “In the Beginning by Walt Brown
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences6.html#wp1072162]
Click to expand...

I have a request, Pahu. When you make a post like this one, would you please say in your own words, what we should take away from each quote and how each quote supports the initial proposition?
 
Hellbound said:
I'm a Last Thursdayist. The entire universe was actually created last Thursday, compelte with all your memories, apparent, history, etc.

It gets recreated every Thursday, so it was always created last Thursday.
Click to expand...

Ah. Is that why students consider Thursday a day of recreation?
 
Last edited:
JonathanQuick said:
It's purely rhetorical. I have come to expect non-answers from the left.
Click to expand...

May I suggest that you avoid using terms like "the left" in a thread partially devoted to whether or not there is scientific accuracy in the theory of evolution?

Here is a poll which shows that while the majority of Republicans doubt evolution, 30% do believe in evolution. While the percentage of believers among Democrats is higher (57%) it is also relatively high for independents as well (61%). Therefore it is quite inaccurate to label the proponents of evolution, leftists.

And as I said in one of your other threads, there are right-wing atheists on this message board.

.........
Just to make sure this post is on topic ( the opening posts deals only with the Flood), I'll ask you the same question I asked the opening poster: if there really were a flood, why would God go to such great lengths to hide all the evidence of it?
 
Last edited:
There is one thing you really need to consider, Pahu. Your title is wrong. Science doesn't really 'disprove' anything. Science provides proofs, based on the information and the evidence.

In the case of the Theory of Evolution, There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that shows that it is indeed likely to be true. In order for you to unseat Evolution as the prevailing view on the variety of life on the planet, you need a new theory, backed by solid evidence and facts.

So, what do you replace Evolution with? And remember, it has to be scientific, testable, and falsifiable.
 
Pure_Argent said:
...have since been superseded by new knowledge.
Click to expand...

Quite. As important a contribution to the understanding of the mechanisms of heredity, as clever as his experiments, his work on this subject was but the first small step on a long journey to our current understanding of genetics. Mendel's experiments demonstrated that there were dominant and recessive phenotypes rather than the blending of traits that had previously been thought to exist. But to suggest that his work somehow invalidates the theory of evolution by natural selection is ludicrous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom