Re: Mendel refutes evolution


mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
unrestrained_hand@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:


<sniip>

Apply these widely prevalent laws to dominant man and his recessive
alleged brute ancestor. The simian characteristics would appear in
some generations, if not in many. We would expect many offspring _to
have the recessive character of the ape_, and we ought not to be
surprised, if some recessive stock became permanent.

This reveals that the author has no idea what "recessive" means, or why
recessive alleles are recessive. Nor, of course, does McCoy.

Actually I do. The author is merely pointing out the facts of
genetics, namely that characteristics are inherited from the parents.
The traits are fixed.

Curiously, no geneticist seems to "know" this. Are you seriously
suggesting that no mutations happen?

Evolutionists merely takes the outward
evidence of this change and projects it into their idea speculating
that since evolution happened and is observed ("I tawt I taw a pink pea
plant arise from a white and red pea plant"

Which statement merely affirms any suspicion that you are clueless
regarding evolution. While gene shuffling and drift can make a
contribution to evolution, obviously nothing dramatic is going to
happen to a species without mutation.

What happens when evolution is observed in action (or induced from the
evidence) is that a beneficial mutation occurs, and environmental
conditions favor the reproduction of the individual expressing that
gene. It spreads thru the genepool because on the average, the
individual organisms expressing that gene (and therefore carrying it)
reproduce faster than those that do not.

therefore: "evolution is
true because there is a change" and thereby pontificate: "we came from
apes."

We *are apes, remember?
[umproven assertion]

Are we not animals? Are we not mammals? Linnaeus classified us as
primates, and remarked on how close to us the other apes are, if only
in design. One does not need to accept evolutionary science to accept
that we move, have warm blood, have fur, etc.

Evolution is true because it happens

[in other words genetic expression occur therefore we came from the apes]

No it is true because it is a fact, a fact known before Darwin
explained its mechanism. We do not claim it is true as a result of our
beliefs. You creationists dismiss evidence which does not fit your
conclusions. If evolutionary science were profoundly wrong, one would
think that an alternative testable explanstion would be presented by
somebody.

, and it is
not the crossbreeding of minor variant genepools; it is the selection
of advantageous mutations by the environment
[unproven assertion that 'advantageous' mutations have had any effect].

How could they be advantageous if they have no effect? Are you saying
there are no beneficial mutations, or that mutations can be beneficial
but not good for reproductive success?

In any event, my point here was that this little pamphlet you quote was
misrepresenting the evolutionary process significantly. If
evolutionary science is claptrap, then surely you would havve no
trouble respresenting it correctly while you shred it, yes?

And yet, you and your ilk constantly set up strawmen. Why is that? Are
you claiming that you think evolution theory claims modification is
brought about by crossbreeding two minor variants in a genepool?

We don't have to pontificate
[he just did]
"pontificate
· verb /pontiffikayt/ 1 express one's opinions in a pompous and
dogmatic way. 2 (in the Roman Catholic Church) officiate as bishop,
especially at Mass. "

You are conflating "correct" with "pompous".

But this is largely a judgement call; I won't contest it. It is, after
all, all you have.

; that's a tool for those who have neither reasoned
discourse nor evidence to support their assertions. (Altho it's true
that your use of the Tweety Bird voice nearly won me over. Could you do
a whole post like that for us sometime?)

The *evidence points ot our being descended from other apes

[self-reassurance in restating what was already asserted yet not proven] .

I have an explanation for why humans have a plantaris tendon. Do you?

What else would we be descended from

[ie, we evolved from monkeys because in our assertion that we evolved, we definitely evolved because we say so and thus it is true, we now have to decide what it is we evolved from and that could only be monkeys]?

Ignoring the obvious truth that apes are always descended from apes,
then it would be also obvious that if everything were descended from a
common ancestor, it would be apes quite a ways back down the family
tree for us, but not all the way.



JM


<snip>

Kermit
Kermit


.