Why Are Evo's Ignorant of Mendelian?

You mean that we have obsereved evolution taking place in an experiment. I did'nt know that. That is why i asked.

Obviously there could be no scientific papers, #7 if there had been no successful experiments #4. The answer is Yes. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years.

Have there also been experiments that replicate the origins of life emerging from the primordial soup, as that would have been the first step of evolution would it not, and the easiest to reproduce given how simple life was then.

Evolution Science has not much to say about life on the primordial young Earth. It is a separate field of science know as abiogenisis. There has been such an experiment. It is known as the Miller-Urey Experiment

PS- I don't believe for a second that you don't have an opinion on this and just stumbled into the thread to ask some questions. Hi guys !

reply to post by Ulster


Resistance to pesticides and anti biotics, is most likely the result of naturally available individuals that are resistant. As they are the only ones left to propagate. There gene pool becomes dominate. There family, takes over. The same is true in humans. Some have been shown to be
immune to NEW diseases from their first discovery! The immune people had NO time to evolve immunity.

Evolution Science has not much to say about life on the primordial young Earth. It is a separate field of science know as abiogenisis. There has been such an experiment. It is known as the Miller-Urey Experiment

reply to post by Ulster


Abiogenisis is NOT about life on the primordial young Earth. It is the study of how the first life evolved form the primordial soup or mud. That is a big difference!

Originally posted by Howie47
Are people that believe in evolution ignorant of "Mendelian inheritance" on purpose, or they just not taught the, " core of classical genetics."




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?

i find this laughable
as you point out mendelian genetics deals with what is in the genome...
yes but evolution in darwin's sense deals with the very same thing.
what you fail to understand is that Darwin's ideas also deal with degrees of more complex mendelian inheritance, where there is blending and further augmenting of certain traits...
as well you need mendelian inheritance to see how evolution would work..
mutations happen and as soon as this is inserted into the genome it works under mendelian ideas anyway.

darwin didn't say this or that was wrong, things evolve and change we see this in our own life with breeding dogs and horses and plants- by selecting certain traits and (predicting using mendelian genetics) we can creat a sub species.(bulldog- greyhound for eg.)..and eventually keep selecting until we get a new species...
this could take a while however, but evolution is a continuum of mendelian gentics to the nth degree...

Originally posted by Howie47
Resistance to pesticides and anti biotics, is most likely the result of naturally available individuals that are resistant. As they are the only ones left to propagate. There gene pool becomes dominate. There family, takes over. The same is true in humans. Some have been shown to be
immune to NEW diseases from their first discovery! The immune people had NO time to evolve immunity.

Thank you for explaining natural selection and which individuals have the best adaptations for reproductive success.

oh and...

Where did the creator(s) get the material to create ?
What makes Intelligent Design claim that it is actually a science ?
What is one of it's substantive and testable hypotheses.

Originally posted by Ulster

Originally posted by Howie47
What the (un-scientific) judge said was: No papers on ID had been
published in peer reviewed journals. First that wasn't true.

Citation Please
National Center for Science Education disagrees with you. Citing a total of zero.

"This search of several hundred thousand scientific reports published over several years failed to discover a single instance of biological research using intelligent design theory to explain life's diversity."

Oxford university goes on to say, "Yes, Michael Behe is a scientist, but is "Intelligent Design" science? If so, it will be the first science established without a single technical paper published for peer-review, including zero by Behe himself. "

Also, Evolution, is not observable, repeatable' in laboratory experiments, or falsifiable. So it is nothing but pseudoscience.
Don't start playing your "shell game", with micro and macro evolution.
Already discussed in this thread and debunked. They are entirely different.

Evolution IS observable: Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history.
Evolution is repeatable:Helianthus anomalus. Also population studies and genetic analysis allow specific and repeatable testing. Much of modern medicine's arsenal of drug therapy is based on the results of such evolutionary studies.
Evolution is falsifiable:There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:
* a static fossil record
* true chimeras
* observations of organisms being created
* some bunnies in the Precambrian

Following is a list of some published in peer reviewed publications papers on ID.

Meyer, S. C. DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285.

Behe, M. J., Design in the details: The origin of biomolecular machines, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 287-302

Dembski, W.A., Reinstating design within science, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education (Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 403-418.

Stephen Meyer, �The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories� Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117 (2004): 213-239.


L�nnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119.

Jonathan Wells, �Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, �Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,� Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004). (PDF, 620KB)

Partial list. enough to proof your source is LYING.

"Evolution IS observable: Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history." tautology Your saying nothing more then, Evolution happens because everything evolved!
"Evolution is repeatable:Helianthus anomalus. Also population studies and genetic analysis allow specific and repeatable testing. Much of modern medicine's arsenal of drug therapy is based on the results of such evolutionary studies." Sense evolutionist have failed to separate, evolution from genetic inheritance, (which this thread has proven). Your statement is bluff. Also modern medicine owes zero to Evolution theory.
They are encouraged to use the Evo rhetoric, to keep evolution viable.
"
Evolution is falsifiable:There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:
* a static fossil record
is exactly what we have: "The gaps in the record are real, however. The absence of any record of any important branching is quite phenomenal. Species are usually static, or nearly so, for long periods, species seldom and genera never show evolution into new species or genera but replacement or one by another, and change is more or less abrupt." (Wesson, R., Beyond Natural Selection, 1991, p. 45.)
many more of the same.
* true chimeras

true chimeras we have
* observations of organisms being created

Done by ID
* some bunnies in the Precambrian
Human foot prints where recently found in the Precambrian, in Mexico.
They are considered, unexplainable anomalies.

No matter what evidence comes to light. Methodological materialist, will
not allow evolution to be falsified. Only a new godless theory can debunk it.

and eventually keep selecting until we get a new species...

reply to post by fiorano


Soon after Darwin's theory was published. Many tried to selectively breed new Phyla. Even trying to cross breed humans and apes. That has gone on for more then 150 years, with out a single success. Laugh at that.

It is also questionable if even a new species has ever been created.
Under the right circumstance they will still interbreed.


[edit on 20-5-2008 by Howie47]

reply to post by Howie47

Lying is it now ?

There are all kinds of resources for you to go check concerning the lies and misinformation on that page (most of them implicit, but you sure bought into them), so like I said you need to scale your rhetoric to your research. It's foolhardy and you'll be laughed at if you don't. The Discovery Institute *still* lists the paper from the Sternberg peer review controversy, the one that exposed Sternberg's complete lack of integrity.

Council of the Biological Society of Washington wrote:The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, "The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories," in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history

The rest of the page is a jumble of conference papers and books, none of which by definition have passed peer-review.

reply to post by Ulster


So now you stoop to further distorting of what you have said. By stating it not only has to be in a peer reviewed paper. But it must, "passed peer-review. " The judge never said anything about passing, or being excepted by the scientific community as fact. It only had to appear!
And I only needed to present one such instance. Since you knew about the one being contested. You lied when you said their was none. As your lying now about, now they have to pass peer review.

reply to post by Ulster


Further more. The peer review of such papers comes from the other scientist that read them, after publishing. Your little quote just underscores how
ID can't get published. They state if the regular person who reviewed which papers got published had been on duty. That paper would never have been published. Guilty Guilty Guilty Yes you are!

[edit on 20-5-2008 by Howie47]

reply to post by fiorano


You don't know what you are talking about. There is a line between genetic inheritance and evolution, (please don't make me point out the
REAL definition). The changes wrought by genetic inheritance can be predicted and proving in controlled breeding.. Evolution on the other hand
can not be predicted. It relies on random mutations or random genetic shifts, that cause unpredictable mutations. Supposable, as the story goes; If said mutation meet some improvement of survival of the individual. that individual will live and pass it's (new) genes starting a new family, or group with genetic information that all others don't have.
Problem is, such good mutations haven't been observed. Millions of bad mutations every day,are. The chromosome has a designed mechanism that prevents such mutations from being passed on in the gene pool. We see many instances of 2 head snakes. Many live to maturity and breed. Yet we don't have a species of two headed snakes. Stick around, you'll learn something.

Originally posted by Howie47
"Evolution IS observable: Life forms have changed and diversified over life's history." tautology Your saying nothing more then, Evolution happens because everything evolved!

Evolution is the name given to a natural process that was discovered by man, not an idea invented by man. No other scientific explanation has been posited or tested that can explain the mountain of observed and experimental evidence that supports evolution.

Sense evolutionist have failed to separate, evolution from genetic inheritance, (which this thread has proven). Your statement is bluff. Also modern medicine owes zero to Evolution theory.
They are encouraged to use the Evo rhetoric, to keep evolution viable.

You really believe this stuff you write ?
There is no such thing as biologically independent non-genetic inheritance, all extrinsic inheritance is a consequence of traits and dispositions that are intrinsic to an organism.

Modern medicine has been affected by Evolution theory. There were huge jumps in the knowledge of comparative anatomy and physiology as well as genetics, virology and pathology etc.

There is not a static fossil record. All paleontologists and geologists know about the 'gaps" in the fossil record. It's not some ID gotcha'. Not every creature that ever lived is preserved in stone. Fossilization is extremely rare, so transitional forms, which neither last long, nor are they as successful as established species, are not found as often as common species in the fossil record.

As for chimeras... You twist every point. A man made chimera is proof to you that evolution in falsifiable ? Wow.

But there you go. Shut down the universities we found some kinda maybe sorta, looks like a human footprint. Yet we find zero mammals in the fossil record from the pre Cambrian period. Not one.

[edit on 5/20/2008 by Ulster]

Originally posted by Howie47
reply to post by Ulster

 

So now you stoop to further distorting of what you have said. By stating it not only has to be in a peer reviewed paper. But it must, "passed peer-review. " The judge never said anything about passing, or being excepted by the scientific community as fact. It only had to appear!
And I only needed to present one such instance. Since you knew about the one being contested. You lied when you said their was none. As your lying now about, now they have to pass peer review.

Have you got a screw loose ? Calling people liars. That is the second time you have called me a liar in two pages. It's a bit harsh and rather sophomoric at best.

Here I'll spell it out for you.

In order for ..

a paper..

to be published in a peer reviewed journal..

it has to go through peer review..

If it doesn't PASS peer review..

It can not by definition be published in a PEER REVIEWED publication.


[edit on 5/20/2008 by Ulster]

Evolution is the name given to a natural process that was discovered by man, not an idea invented by man. No other scientific explanation has been posited or tested that can explain the mountain of observed and experimental evidence that supports evolution.

reply to post by Ulster


Since we cannot observe your natural process in action (unless we extrapolate, genetic inheritance into evolution, which is what evo's are trying to do) and your mountain of evidence must be (interpreted into the context of evolution).
While other interpretations are not allowed. So as I said. Tautology!

There is no such thing as biologically independent non-genetic inheritance, all extrinsic inheritance is a consequence of traits and dispositions that are intrinsic to an organism.

Agreed, which proves my whole point. Genetic inheritance provides the information for the changes we see in species. Those changes don't add up to Macro-evolution. See post earlier, One of your own top evo's P.Z. Myers, said them same.

Modern medicine has been affected by Evolution theory. There were huge jumps in the knowledge of comparative anatomy and physiology as well as genetics, virology and pathology etc.

There is not a static fossil record. All paleontologists and geologists know about the 'gaps" in the fossil record. It's not some ID gotcha'. Not every creature that ever lived is preserved in stone. Fossilization is extremely rare, so transitional forms, which neither last long, nor are they as successful as established species, are not found as often as common species in the fossil record.

These two statements prove what I just said above. It all depends on who is doing the interpretation and what their motive is. My quote was by
a famous paleontologist, that you have chosen to disagree with.

As for chimeras... You twist every point. A man made chimera is proof to you that evolution in falsifiable ? Wow.

If you want a naturally occurring chimera, take a look at the platypus thread.

But there you go. Shut down the universities we found some kinda maybe sorta, looks like a human footprint. Yet we find zero mammals in the fossil record from the pre Cambrian period. Not one.

First you bluff me about the bunnies. Now you try and enlarge your bluff.
By the way, there are more then one, and there is no doubt about them being human. Maybe you are stuttering at the thought?
As I said it is all open to interpretation. At least with real science, it should be! Every prediction I've heard made my Evo's through the years, I have seen contradicted. Yet they march on, with the only theory they got. That
doesn't involve a Creator. And that is what this is really all about.

[edit on 20-5-2008 by Howie47]

reply to post by Ulster


Maybe your not lying. Maybe you are just ignorant and mentally handicapped.
Papers are reviewed by the publishers, as to which will be published. Because they are presented with many more then they can publish.
The purpose of these journals (publications) is to get the papers before the scientific community. So that the presenter's (peers) can review the conclusions and either sign on or try and refute, what has been presented.

Hope that helps you understand how it works and alleviates your confusion!

[edit on 20-5-2008 by Howie47]

Where did the creator(s) get the material to create ?

reply to post by Ulster


How about, they created it! Is that so difficult to imagine? A bit of force, at any single point. That repels a similar force at any other single point. Equals matter... May the Force be with you!

What makes Intelligent Design claim that it is actually a science ?

So far, unlike evo's, they have been honest, and stated they aren't science yet.
However, Science rightly claims to be able to identify that which has been artificially made from that which happened naturally.. A radio message from space, that says, "hello earthlings". Most likely isn't just
static from a pulsar! Therefore science can determine if life and the universe was created by an intelligence.

What is one of it's substantive and testable hypotheses.

I don't know about ID's scientist hypotheses. But here is one of my own. If life is found on other planets. And it has similar chromosome to life on earth. That is pretty concrete proof of a common creator.

but intelligent design and creationism (in a sense- i.e. BigBang) do not refute evolution and neither does evolution refute the others...
how can not one person see these as happening as a result of the other?
if there is creation and evolution is the cup of tea you drink then BANG and it all sets off...
as things progress perhaps the Power or Creator decides to intervene and make something more in Its own image ...
"Evo's" is not a religion or a philosophy it is just a theory and those who might subscribe to that thought now until it is disproved in its entirety.
mendelian genetics explains the generations to the one you want to study but Genetic inheritance is much more complex than that- it is a simple model for few traits...
while embryology does not recapitulate phylogeny exactly it is pretty close, and it is even better in salamanders and frogs.
we can't simply create a new phyla- a new Genus maybe than go backwards wonce we know how to introduce a successful mutation then from there the mendelian pattern can be seen
some lady bred Boxers (dogs) a few year ago because she could not stand cutting there tails for shows...so she bred a new Boxer (a few mixes with some short tailed pooch) and back to boxers then viola a new recognized sub breed of Boxer with no tail. (it took 8 generations or so)
this is not speciation but it is some evidence if the trait was selected for yadda yadda yadda...
Chimeric Mice they are a new species of mouse...they do not and can not breed with non chimeras...this is ofcourse 'intelligently designed' evolution of species....

reply to post by fiorano

but intelligent design and creationism (in a sense- i.e. BigBang) do not refute evolution and neither does evolution refute the others...

Then the whole question over the evolution, creation debate would be over: The amount that was due to planned creation, the amount that is a result of designed mechanisms that bring change, the amount that is or isn't a planned response to the environment, finally the amount that happens by accident.
You know the materialist would never entertain such. However most creationist are already.
Maybe I'll respond to the rest of what you said tomorrow. Goodnight.

[edit on 20-5-2008 by Howie47]

I have to say that i am confused that the science involved in the origins of life starting and the theory of it evolving would be approached separately. I guess they must be fundamentally different.

Originally posted by Ulster

PS- I don't believe for a second that you don't have an opinion on this and just stumbled into the thread to ask some questions. Hi guys !

I do have an opinion, and it is evolving. I don't believe for a second that i have denied that. It is only that you are again making personal assumptions as to which side my opinion supports and thus taken it in some way negatively. You can believe what you believe, but is it based on any fact? For someone who holds science up as the model on which to base opinion i find this trend of yours, to baselessly infer, contradictory.
This is the first thread on this debate that i have read and posted on. I have looked at a few creation theory threads(mostly when they refer to UFO/Alien), but if you go to my profile and check out some of the frivolous(well you have to have some fun) and serious thread( well one is) i have started you will see what my main interest at ATS is. Which is why i am asking questions. Save your self righteousness and superiority complex for the religious threads my friend. Thanks for answering my questions and questioning my motives, i hope my answer is as helpful as yours was.

p.s God bless and take care.

Originally posted by Howie47

How about, they created it! Is that so difficult to imagine? A bit of force, at any single point. That repels a similar force at any other single point. Equals matter... May the Force be with you!

I know this may be straying of topic, but i wonder what will happen if CERN proves the Higgs field exists. Is this that force. And then what,More questions? Sometimes i think thats this is all science and religion debates create: more and more questions.