Wow, you *really* need to lay off those drugs.
But just for giggles, please do attempt to document this amazing claim.
The CHARLATAN Darwin said that traits are combined from mother to father. That the features 'meld' in the progeny. This shows quite well that the man was no scientist. In fact, I am sure he was led to this view due to his racism since the racial traits do seem to meld in progeny but this is due to these traits arising from different genes, not from 'melding'. It took evolutionists some three decades to figure out a way to reconstruct Darwinism to account for Mendel's genetics. This however was not quite successful and just dug a deep hole for them when DNA was discovered.
and even nowadays you can read arguments from moronic evolutionists saying that it is not true in all cases.-me-
Because it's not. Lateral transfer, for example, is one of the several ways that genetic information can be passed without Mendelian genetics.
Thanks for proving my point for me. Moronic evolutionists still deny the truth of Mendelian genetics.
Nowhere in the Origin of Species do either the word "trait(s)" or the word "meld" occur. Why don't you quote him to try to support your claim, instead of attempting to paraphrase him? (Because we all know how "creative" your paraphrases are.)
I just went through an online copy of Origin of Species, searching and reading every passage which contained the words "parent(s)" or "inheritance" (which was the term for "genetics" in Darwin's day). Not only did I find nothing at all like you describe, I found passages which flatly CONTRADICT your assertion about what Darwin said about genetics. For example:
The laws governing inheritance are quite unknown; no one can say why the same peculiarity in different individuals of the same species, and in individuals of different species, is sometimes inherited and sometimes not so; why the child often reverts in certain characters to its grandfather or grandmother or other much more remote ancestor; why a peculiarity is often transmitted from one sex to both sexes or to one sex alone, more commonly but not exclusively to the like sex. It is a fact of some little importance to use that peculiarities appearing in the males of our domestic breeds are often transmitted either exclusively, or in a much greater degree, to males alone.Contrary to your false accusation that Darwin believed that parental traits simply "meld" in the child, he SPECIFICALLY included in his work the realizations that, in modern language, 1) recessive traits can lay dormant and then pop up in the offspring, 2) traits often fail to pass during reproduction [today we know this is because the offspring only gets a random half of the paired genes from each parent], 3) there are sex-linked genes, 4) there are genetic diseases which pop up rarely and unpredictably in some family lines, 5) children of the same parents differ from each other and aren't just similar "averages" of their parents.[...]
Every one must have heard of cases of albinism, prickly skin, hairy bodies, &c. appearing in several members of the same family. If strange and rare deviations of structure are truly inherited, less strange and commoner deviations may be freely admitted to be inheritable.
[...]
Seedlings from the same fruit, and the young of the same litter, sometimes differ considerably from each other, though both the young and the parents, as Muller has remarked, have apparently been exposed to exactly the same conditions of life; and this shows how unimportant the direct effects of the conditions of life are in comparison with the laws of reproduction, and of growth, and of inheritance;
In short, you're absolutely, 100% wrong about Darwin's views of genetics. Not only was he *not* of the opinion that children are just "melds" of their parents' traits, but in fact he was way ahead of his time in recognizing the way that traits tend to remain distinct and are passed on in "all or nothing" fashion, and are similarly expressed (or not expressed) in "on or off" manners.
Although he hadn't mathematically quantified it as Mendel had, Darwin had *all* the qualitative observations of inheritance correct and said so in his book.
You're quite simply wrong. Again. Still. Do you *ever* get anything right?
This shows quite well that the man was no scientist.
On the contrary, the *actual* contents of his book show him to be a scientist way ahead of his time in recognizing the laws of inheritance, and *your* false accusation shows *you* to be "no reliable source".
In fact, I am sure he was led to this view due to his racism
Darwin was no racist (quite the contrary, in fact -- surprisingly so for his era), as has been shown to you again and again by enlightened quotes from his works. And again and again you have been challenged to support your slur, and you have repeatedly run away. You're despicable.
It took evolutionists some three decades to figure out a way to reconstruct Darwinism to account for Mendel's genetics.
You're hallucinating again. Or trolling. Neither option inspires confidence, but it's pretty par for the course for creationists. Are you *trying* to torpedo your side's credibility?
[Gore:] and even nowadays you can read arguments from moronic evolutionists saying that it is not true in all cases.
[Me:] Because it's not. Lateral transfer, for example, is one of the several ways that genetic information can be passed without Mendelian genetics.
[Gore:] Thanks for proving my point for me. Moronic evolutionists still deny the truth of Mendelian genetics.
Not even you could be as dense as you pretend to be here, so you're clearly trolling. Grow up.