The Limits of Variability (Gregor Mendel)

One of the “heroes” of evolutionists is Gregor Mendel, a European monk who experimented with plant breeding in the latter half of the 1800s. While his contemporary Charles Darwin specifically tried to replace belief in creation, Mendel claimed he was trying to understand God’s creation. Evolutionists like to quote Mendel’s findings as proof for their beliefs, but in reality he demonstrated the strict limitations of biological change.

Mendel was a good experimentalist, working with plants in his monastery’s garden. He bred varieties of garden peas to enhance certain features and noticed that while there was variability in plants, there was a clear limit to that variability. The plants could be bred in one direction but there was a limit to how far they could go. He saw no evidence of evolution; indeed, he observed the opposite of evolutionary change. A plant with one color blossom might be encouraged to produce a plant with another color blossom, but the basic plant remained the same. Mendel’s efforts established the laws of genetics but uncovered no evidence for evolution.

All of the relevant practical breakthroughs in medicine and genetics have been done by Baraminologists, not by Darwinists. It’s why we’ve been able to cure many forms of cancer in rats for a long time, yet haven’t managed to do so in humans.

We all know that the Darwinists care more about their political and philosophical posturing than they do about practical science, however. While Creationists such as Dr. Ben Carson are busy saving lives, Darwinists are busy telling humanity that we’re savage pond scum who can only be tamed by Big Government.

There is variability among sea snails and variability among roses, but they each are separate and distinct kinds. There is absolutely no evidence that a coral will evolve or ever did evolve into a sea snail. Each basic type remains that basic type.

Serendipitous you should post this, I was just thinking about it this morning.

Let's make a linguistic analogy, since we have better real-time evidence of how languages change than species.

Latin was a widespread language 2000 years ago. Now it may have had a few different dialects across the wide reach of the Empire, but it was essentially the same language. The same "type" if you like.

Fast forward to 2014. Latin has become at least half a dozen different languages, including Italian Spanish and French.

So what happened? Did like beget nonlike? Did the basic type become a different type?

No. Latin simply changed rather imperceptibly across several different lines, and the cumulative effect of those small changes was to produce various languages that--while obviously stemming from a common root--differ so greatly from each other that they are best considered different languages. This is NOT stasis. This is change, but a change that--as the title implies--is one of limited variability moving in a certain direction.

I cannot think of any evolutionary model that would allow a mollusk (sea snail) to turn into a Cnidarian (coral). But that doesn't mean that they can't share a common ancestor.

What ICR is doing here with their sea snail to coral analogy is the equivalent of saying that since Latin can't turn into German, Latin can't turn into Italian either. And that's hogwash.

The evolutionary model does NOT require organisms to jump from one type to another. It rather assumes that one type can produce a range of daughter types that then produce their own daughter types, etc. And in fact the way scientists determine what evolved from what is to show that the ancestor had the characteristics of BOTH types which then, in various proportions, got divided up and suppressed or exaggerated as required.

The language change is not analogous to organism change.

There is far more freedom in changing a language than in an organism.

One can change a language by 180 degrees and it wouldn’t affect functionality - try the same with an organism and you get extinction of the creatures.

By the way, the old classification system was based on morphology - new efforts to base them on DNA and shared biochemistries are yielding many surprises that ICR, CMI, and Discovery are actively investigating.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.