It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Are Evo's Ignorant of Mendelian?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   
Are people that believe in evolution ignorant of "Mendelian inheritance" on purpose, or they just not taught the, " core of classical genetics."
I ask this for two different things that recently came to my attention.
One, a thread on ATS about a lizards on an island, that showed slight changes over a 30 year period. This was totted as absolute proof of
classical evolution. Second was this mornings news. "Where in the World is Matt Lauer?" He was sitting on a beach, in the Indian Ocean, (Seychelles) islands. Beside him was a Galapagos giant tortoises?!
The island rep. said, "We haven't told people we have more of these tortoises then the Galapagos does!"


Galapagos tortoise




Indian Ocean tortoise




Both these lizards and the tortoises are used as Proof of classical Evolution. But they are obviously proof of Mendelian inheritance. Which has nothing to do with classical Evolution.
Why? Classical Evolution has to rely on new information in the genome, for life to ever evolve into higher more complex species. Mendilian's Law's, rely on genetic information that is already present in the genome.
Isolate a small group of any species, and Mendilian's Law's, can (predict) what new traits will become dominate. Those traits are limited to the genetic information, already available. Selection, either natural or artificial, can guide which traits become dominate.
But that alone has nothing to do with classical Darwinian Evolution.
So, why is Evolution, a very unscientific theory, (not observable, not reproducable) , taught in school?
While the established law's of Mendelian either are not? Or Evolutionist
choose to ignore them! Which is worse?
Is it because they are contrary to Evolution theory? Or because they undermine the little evidence they have to sell Evolution? I wonder?




posted on May, 2 2008 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


Great post Howie47. They do teach some Mendelian genetics in additional to Darwin's evolution in high school though.



posted on May, 2 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Howie47
Beside him was a Galapagos giant tortoises?!
The island rep. said, "We haven't told people we have more of these tortoises then the Galapagos does!"

Both these lizards and the tortoises are used as Proof of classical Evolution. But they are obviously proof of Mendelian inheritance.



Indian Ocean Tortoises:
Aldabra giant tortoise - Dipsochelys dussumieri
Seychelles giant tortoise - Dipsochelys hololissa
Arnold's giant tortoise - Dipsochelys arnoldi

Galapagos Tortoise:
Geochelone elephantopus

So the Indian ocean does NOT have MORE Galapagos Island Tortoises than the Galapagos Islands.

If anything is obvious it will not have to be pointed out that it is obvious.

I question your use of the term EVO's. That sounds like a term to marginalize people for what they believe. I am not fond of that practice.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 07:52 AM
link   
If your speaking of the slight differences that distinguish the isolated family groups. Causing scientist to label these tortoises as totally different species. Then you have proved my point. That (Evo's)lutionist, Darwinist? or maybe Darwinians, ignore these type of changes that happen due to Mendelian inheritance. The same changes we see in human families. Especially when they limit their marriages between their own family members. Like the big hooked noses of the British Royal family.

If your just arguing out of the air; that Seychelles islands do not have as many of them as Galapagos. Then your argument is with there tourist officials and their government claims..



Aldabra, the second UNESCO World Heritage Site, is a remote atoll of wild beauty, and home to 150,000 giant land tortoises, as well as colonies of rare birds, some endemic only to Aldabra.
Seychelles Islands


[edit on 3-5-2008 by Howie47]



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 

Darwin was ignorant of Mendelian genetics -- a historical accident.

Darwinians are not. Why do you think they are?

Mendel's work forms the basis of the science of genetics, which modern evolutionary theory draws upon. There is no conflict between them. In fact, you cannot understand how evolution happens if you don't understand genetics.



posted on May, 3 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


So your position is that a giant tortoise is a giant tortoise, damn the genetics and ancestry and the fact that they cannot interbreed, because Darwin pisses you off due to the fact you are utterly incapable of understanding such basic things about evolution such as the fact that it does, indeed, utilize existing genetic information?

Go back to making up words and definitions that don't actually exist, Howie.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 08:05 AM
link   


Darwinians are not. Why do you think they are?


Re-read my OP! Maybe your demonstrating the real problem with the Evolutionist mind set. They automaticaly filter out any information
that doesn't (fit) into their (pretend reality). When we were children pretend realities were OK. When children are dong so, no one takes them seriously. Adults need to grow up and stop pretending. At least when they are doing serious things.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   




No, the problem is that you think you know what you're talking about, but you don't have a clue. There wasn't a single correct thing stated in the OP. Either you're a troll, or you're really, really ignorant.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by Howie47
 


Go back to making up words and definitions that don't actually exist, Howie.


Great post glad you can contribute to the professional manner in these forums.
The simple position of a Creationist in the matter of genetics is that you must show new DNA/Information being created out of "no where". If your so great with genetics then "bless" us with an informed and constructive post.



posted on May, 4 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Great thread, Howie. Flagged and starred.

I'm kind of burnt out on evolution/creationism/ID debates however I would like to expand on something you and others have said on other threads. It certainly seems evolutionists hijack any type of evidence that remotely supports their theory even if it calls for them to take a leap to tie it into the entire theory of evolution or support of macro.

Anyways, interesting thread.
Don't let the dissenters get to you- I noticed when they have nothing and they know it, they resort to attacking the poster in an effort to shame you into accepting their beliefs. Keep up the good work.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


Re-read my OP!

I read it. I cannot make any sense of it, because -- to be honest -- it doesn't make sense.

For example,


Classical Evolution has to rely on new information in the genome, for life to ever evolve into higher more complex species.

You are simply ignoring the effect of mutation. Yes, yes, I know the usual creationist arguments. They are rubbish because we know mutation exists. If mutations were always deleterious, then every species on the planet would have degenerated into sludge by now and all God's carefull creative work would have been in vain.


Mendilian's Law's, rely on genetic information that is already present in the genome

There is no such thing as 'Mendilian's Laws'. If you mean the laws of inheritance that were devised by Gregor Mendel, these do form the beginnings of the theory of genetic inheritance we now have, and which every 'evo', as you like to call us, completely accepts. Unfortunately, they tell us nothing at all about the physical nature of genes. They do not even explain what a gene is, far less discourse on the origins of genetic 'information'. They do not connect genetics with microbiology -- it was Thomas Hunt Morgan who did that. Mendel did not understand mutation, and his work does not, as far as I know, make mention of it.

Now, Howie, would you like to tell us what exactly a gene is?

Could you also tell us how Mendel -- who never used the word 'gene' -- could have understood the modern definition, since he published his paper in 1865 (six years after Darwin published the Origin of Species) and the idea of genes as carriers of biological information only surfaced very much later, during the twentieth century?

Thank you for answering my earlier question. I hope you will be kind enough to answer these two also.

[edit on 5-5-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
I don't want to debate with you directly Astyanax.
Because in the past (other threads), I have found your post less then forthright!


I read it. I cannot make any sense of it, because -- to be honest -- it doesn't make sense.


However in case anyone else has trouble understanding Mendelian inheritance and it's laws. Here is a simple and clear explanation. As
my basic education on the subject, will allow.

When a group of individuals is isolated from a larger group. That new group provides the genetic information, that becomes the foundation or basis for a new population. That genetic information is more limited, then what was available in the larger group.
The limited information in the parents, causes certain physical traits
to dominate that population. They become a unique (family group). With
unique features that distinguish them from the beginning group they came from. Although, all those unique features can be found within the larger beginning group.
This explains the differences in the above tortoises, lizards, and also
the differences in the human family.
In the human family, this (fact) is represented by the different races, ethnic groups, up to smaller family groups. Each have inherited unique physical features. Skin color, hair type or color, bone structure,
facial features, even body size.
None of that has anything to do with (classical evolution). Which maintains life is changing toward ever higher more complex forms.
That theory needs (new) more complex information to happen.
Mendelian inheritance can happen from a lose of information. Or the
addition of new parents from a outside population. Which brings in new
information. Which brings about changes. Mendelian inheritance does not rely on (mutations) to provide, hit or miss, information.
Classical Evolution, must explain how all (present life) evolved from something much less complex then bacteria. Which itself is very very complex. Mendelian inheritance does (not) explain classical evolution!
So Evo's need to (stop) trying to use it as evidence........................


[edit on 5-5-2008 by Howie47]



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN! The evolution/Creationism debate has finally been ended! A layperson, clearly without knowledge of evolution, has managed to point out in a post, a 3-paragraph post at that, how evolution is all nonsense. He didn't even need to use logic or knowledge of evolution to do it - he just put some pictures of tortoises up, wrote some things that he once heard from someone, and now the debate has been ended for all. Wow. How can Evo's hope to do battle with such a perfect argument?

That's it! Call up Dawkins and tell him he's lost! Everyone praise Jesus!

(That was sarcastic, btw). You might get upset with people calling you names, but then what do you expect when you wade into something so highly-documented and supported as evolution, with your only argument being how hard you can wave your bible around?

Humanity got where it has through the scientific method, not through focussing solely on a bronze-age book to teach us the secrets of the world. We're not attacking you as a person, merely the ridiculous process you go through to determine what's true and what isn't. Get a grip!



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


There's my good buddy Super Dave. I knew I could count on Old Reliable to remind us all about the scientific method, refer to the Bible as a bronze age book, and ridicule us into submission. Let's not bother to look at the point the OP is trying to make. Let's just call him an idiot for pointing out an error in the evidence used to support evolution.

Shame on you, Howie. Oh wait. Nevermind. Dave just accused you of waving your Bible around when you have not quoted a single passage of scripture anywhere in this thread and all have your arguments have been science-based and not religion based. Keep on trucking and ignore the likes of Super Dave whose MO is to toss around accusations without backing them up or ever explaining himself as to why you wrong- just that you are based on his say so.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Excellent reply
Thanks for showing us that victim mentality again. Priceless.

Howie et al have to come up with some evidence to further their case. That's all I'm asking. That's all the scientific method is asking.

So far, there is nothing. And the reason I talk about the bible is that the two only possible reasons someone would not want to believe in evolution is:

1. Ignorance of how the process happens

or

2. Some predetermined opinion that it's rubbish

Or, I guess, both. No-one came up with the ID hypothesis because they observed something, or that something wasn't explained fully in evolution. They came up with that idea because it's written in the bible. That's how easy it is to spot someone who's arguing from science and someone who isn't - scientists don't equate hypotheses with theories, only those who hold hypotheses dear and want them to be theories do. Which you're demonstrating right now.

And yes, the bible is a bronze-age book, and if one does treat it as anything other than that, they are by the very dictionary definitions naive, gullible, and ignorant.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
Excellent reply
Thanks for showing us that victim mentality again. Priceless.


No, Babe. The victim mentality is what you would have liked to have seen in reply. Calling you out on your pointless cookie cutter posts is more like a kick in the groin. Not sure how often those with a victim complex kick their opponents in the groin. Most of them just shrivel up and submit.


Howie et al have to come up with some evidence to further their case. That's all I'm asking. That's all the scientific method is asking.


Ah, but his thread isn't 'Proof of ID!' No, he was bringing up an entirely different issue questioning hijacked evidence and ignored alternatives regarding genetics.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 



I don't want to debate with you directly Astyanax. Because in the past (other threads), I have found your post less then forthright!

Are you calling me a liar, Howie47? Prove it. Quote a post from me that is 'less than forthright'. You will not be able to do it, because I have never lied on this forum, or misrepresented my position in any way. I am a proud man and I have too much respect for myself to lie.

The real reason you won't debate me directly is you know you don't stand a chance. You won't answer my questions because you know that any answer you could give would instantly expose your abysmal ignorance of the subject you have chosen to talk about in this thread.

Very well; I shan't debate you. But the questions I raised in my previous post still stand, and as long as you leave them unanswered, your credibility with all but a few creationist members of this site will be zero. You'll be preaching to the converted. Have fun.

Decency and honour demand that you apologize for your slur against me, but I will not. I can live without your damned apologies.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


If Evo's want to make claims, that changes in isolated populations are do to (mutations) and not Mendelian inheritance. Then they must provide the hard evidence of that. They must eliminate all the possibles that Mendelian inheritance isn't the source. Then show that mutation is the source. But they don't provide any support of their wild claim. They just say it must be true. Because classical evolution is true. Circular reasoning at it worst. Or best, depending on how you read it.
They also need to stop bemoaning their lack of a big enough laboratory or enough time to demonstrate classical Evolution experimentally. There are no and can be no exceptions to the rules of the scientific method. If scientific theories can't meet the criteria of that method. They remain, pseudoscience, and should be viewed as such................



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Howie47
 


So you're saying the alleged fact that evolutionists are in slight disagreement about just one part of a massive yet-to-be-disproven theory is grounds for calling it pseudoscience? That's about as ridiculous as a claim can be. Good work. Yet you can bang on about God farting the universe without being called pseudoscience?

This discussion is ridiculous. Evolution has evidence. Not just some, but a lot. Everything else (including ID/God/Jeeeebus, etc.) has NONE. Zilch. Nada. Niente. The only reason people believe it is because it's written in the bible, and early folks didn't have the knowledge to realise the earth can be created without the need for any supreme beings floating about. And you still haven't denied that ignorance, which is now over 4,000 years in the making. God, if he exists, is face-palming just for you. Listen closely and you might hear it. He gave you that brain and this is what you do with it - mindlessly regurgitate baseless nonsense in a desperate hope to untopple a solid scientific theory, in some ridiculous hope that in doing so your bronze-age nonsense somehow gains credibility. Luckily all those folks who make the medicine that keeps your family alive didn't embrace ignorance, otherwise we'd be rubbing bark on ourselves to cure AIDS, and wondering why God doesn't like us.

Good luck!



posted on May, 7 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 





yet-to-be-disproven theory


For it to be a legitimate scientific theory. (It must be proved). Over and over. (repeatable experiments), It must be an observable phenomenon,
and it must be falsifiable. Neo-Darwinism doesn't meet any of that criteria!
It would be falsifiable if they allowed ID into science. But they are to scared of ID and anything else that doesn't originate with the material. So they lock it out. Again, it doesn't need to be disproved, it needs to be proved. Not just excepted, because it is the only theory the materialist have.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join