Replies

All the greatest discoveries in biology have served to disprove evolution. Mendel genetics made the transmission of new traits almost impossible, DNA made them completely impossible, the interrelatedness of DNA shows it to be utterly and irretrievably impossible.

Let's try that again, shall we? You need to give up those rubber crutches, you are going to just fall RIGHT over.

From this essay, it is for a debate. http://www.nmsr.org/essay3a.htm

Charles Darwin did not know of Mendel's discoveries on genetics, nor did he know of the actual nature of the genetic material - the spiral coils of deoxyribose-nucleic acid, DNA. There has been a huge explosion of knowledge on genetics and biochemistry in the past century, but this explosion has not produced one finding that contradicts the basic concepts of evolution. In fact, these discoveries have shed incredible light on how evolution actually occurs, right down to the atomic level. MOLECULAR COMPARISONS In recent decades, the bio-molecules (proteins and DNA) of many species have been studied and compared. Some anti-evolution writers, including Denton(1) and Kenyon(2), claim these comparisons "disprove" evolution. Using data that show the percentage of protein sequence differences between the cytochrome C of bacteria and other forms of modern life, they find it surprising that the percentages are all about the same. But this is exactly what evolution predicts! Landau(3) shows Denton's error is the result of misunderstanding evolution as linear rather than branching, and of failing to recognize that protein evolution doesn't stop once a new species has evolved. When comparing sequences of bacteria and other modern creatures, the common ancestor is so remote (billions of years ago) that the differences average out to 65%. But when recently evolved life forms are compared with each other, the percentage differences are much smaller . Horse and pigeon cytochrome differ by 11%, though both differ from bacteria by 64%. By stressing only parts of the full picture, anti-evolutionists distort the truth. Bio-molecules provide a method of testing evolutionary hypotheses, and so far evolution has passed these tests with flying colors. In recent experiments on rapidly evolving viruses(4,5), scientists were able to deduce exact family histories (independently known) using only molecular methods!

Now then, Mendel genetics disproved what? and DNA, made what almost impossible.

You really are delusional.

Then we can go here as well.

http://scidiv.bcc.ctc.edu/rkr/Biology101/lectures/EvolutionMechanisms.html

In the early 1900's Mendel's work was rediscovered by a number of researchers, who, at first, tried to use genetics to disprove Darwin's theory of gradual evolution through slow selection of beneficial characteristics. The "Mendel" group promoted the idea that changes would occur rapidly via mutations, and that natural selection had no role in changes that occurred in populations through time. It took many years to bring together genetics, population biology and natural selection as means of evolution. The first real "breakthrough" came from the collaboration of a mathematician and a doctor in 1908, but as is common, took a while to gain acceptance.

They tries and they FAILED, because DNA and Mendel Genetics ACTUALLY HELPED PROVE the Theory of evolution.

Get a grip Blueman, your rubber crutch is bent in a 180 and you are on the ground.

Care to try again?

Charles Darwin did not know of Mendel's discoveries on genetics

Evolutinists always make the claim that Darwin did not know about this or that, however, if he was such a great scientist, so insightful as evolutionists claim, he should not have made so many silly statements that were disproven later by science.

They tries and they FAILED, because DNA and Mendel Genetics ACTUALLY HELPED PROVE the Theory of evolution.

No it did not. The joker in the deck of evolution which the evolutionists carefully hide with verbiage is that a mutation does not spread according to Mendelian Genetics. The mutation will continue to represent the same portion of the population as it originally had which is in essence 1/2 of the alleles of a single individual of a particular gene in whatever size of population the mutation arose. Thus in a population of 1 million the mutation would continue to be 1/2 millionths of the alleles for that gene. Further, because of the small portion of the population a new mutation represents, the allele would tend to dissappear due to the laws of chance (a bad run of luck) coming up eventually. If one starts flipping coins against the house with even odds and comes in with a single quarter and keeps playing the individual with the quarter will eventually lose it all. These facts are admitted to by the evolutionists who looked into this problem and made up the rules - Hardy and Weinberg and Fisher.

Evolutionists try to get around these facts by proposing that a high selective value for these mutations will solve the problem. However, this goes against the theory of Darwinian evolution which proposes that changes are small and gradual. If changes are small and gradual then each change must have to have a low selective value and cannot spread easily and will be easily lost. This problem also gets rid of the theory of neutral mutations. So clearly genetics disproves Darwinian evolution.

Then came DNA which showed essentially that all mutational changes would necessarily have to be small. A completely new gene would constitute a miracle and evolution to be true would need miriads of such miracle to have created all the species on earth from measly bacteria. Now the interrelatedness of functions (which essentially is an argument as old Aristotle) was proven when it was shown that genes are just factories, they are just the printers of an organism's system, all the directions come from the 95% of DNA which is not in the genes. What this means for evolution is that essentially every single function is a system in itself which cannot arise stochastically by a single mutation (even a tremendously favorable one) because there is code needed in many different parts of an organism to make it work. In other words, every function of an organism is in a sense 'irreducibly complex'.