Re: Mendel's Experiment
- From: All-Seeing-I <allseeingi@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:21:35 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 13, 12:33 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"What did Mendel discover that spoke against Darwin's theory of
Nothing at all. Next?
This can best be answered by considering what he actually did. Mendel
crossed various races of edible peas.
Races? When I read this sentence, I thought you might be mining Nazi
propaganda again. But it turns out just to be simple ignorance.
When a red-flowered plant was
crossed with a white-flowered, the offspring were found to be red-
flowered. Mendel then crossed these red offspring with each other and
found that they produced offspring of their own in the ratio of 3
reds : 1 white.
"We can best understand this by considering the genes involved in
these crosses. A gene can be considered as a unit which determines a
particular characteristic, in this case flower colour. It can exist in
one of two forms, one giving rise to red flowers and the other to
white. The offspring of the original cross of red-flowered plants with
white were all red-flowered, although they did in fact possess both a
gene for red flowers and a gene for white.
"Mendel concluded that the red gene must be dominant to the white, so
that any plant that possessed them both would be red. When these red
plants were bred with each other, it was possible for two white genes
to come together and so give offspring that were white. The chance
that the offspring would receive at least one red gene is 3:1, ...
"New Genes or Old?
"Mendel found that when he interbred the red-flowered plants obtained
as the offspring of his original cross, he got white flowers produced
as well as red. Darwin's theory rested on the assumption that in such
a case as this the white characteristic was a new character acquired
by the young plants which their parents had not possessed. After all,
a race has got to acquire new characteristics if it is ever going to
"Mendel showed that the characteristic had not been acquired. It had
been present all the time in the parents' generation, though masked by
a more dominant gene. If one applies statistics to Mendel's ideas one
can show quite easily that the genes in the new generation exist in
exactly the same frequency as they did in the parents' generation. It
might be possible to lose some genes by killing off those individuals
that possessed them but it would never be possible to acquire new
"... Darwin's theory began to flounder when these facts came to light.
It was saved from total eclipse by the emergence of a theory which
said that genes could sometimes change to completely new forms. This
radical change in the gene is known as a mutation.
"This is the form in which Darwin's theory is believed today. It is
assumed that mutations can change the gene to a new form. The process
of natural selection is said to operate by selecting out those new
genes which are favourable to the organism and discarding others. ...
"The modern theory of evolution thus stands or falls on this question
of mutation. If mutations do not occur, it is impossible for evolution
to progress. We must therefore examine the question of mutations and
see if they actually occur as evolutionists claim.
This is right, more or less. If there are no mutations, and if there is
no change in environment, evolution will eventually grind to a halt,
though it can go on for some time just on the variation already present.
"Firstly, it is certain that mutations can and do occur.
Well, that's a load off. Evolution is saved!
is just as certain that any major change in a gene is always a change
for the worse. This is what we would expect. Genes are complicated and
wonderfully designed and any major change in them will lead to their
functioning less efficiently.
Oops. First, note that suddenly mutations are "major change". What about
small mutations? Second, who says large mutations are always for the worse?
"This is admitted by geneticists after seventy years of intensive
Ah, conveniently unnamed geneticists. Nice.
During that time they have induced thousands of
mutations in various organisms, but have not been able to come up with
one convincing case of a mutation that was clearly beneficial to the
organism. In fact, it is now generally admitted that mutations under
natural conditions are so rare, and so often harmful, that when they
do occur they are not of any significance to the genetics of a
population of creatures. Any individuals who do receive the mutations
will tend to die out and so the genetic structure of the population as
a whole will remain unaffected.
None of that is true. There are a great many mutations known to be
favorable, depending of course on environment. I think you may even have
cited some; certainly other creationists have.
"Mutations are far from being able to produce new, vigorous genes
which would enable a race of organisms to evolve.
Race again. You have to wonder. Vigorous genes? Strength through joy?
They are extremely
rare and detrimental events which do not alter the genetic structure
of the race as a whole - except in some cases to weaken it. This even
applies to so-called favourable mutations such as the sickle cell
anaemia trait and the drug-resistance of bacteria, but space will not
allow discussion of these. But even if mutations were to occur in the
way that evolutionists claim, evolution would still be impossible. ..
And again race. Are you sure the writer isn't a Nazi? And all that
wasted effort, since even if nothing the writer says is true (which, by
the way, is the case), evolution is still impossible. Go figure.
http://www.broadcaster.org.uk/section2/transcript/evolution.htm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Not every comparison involving color is racial motivated JH.
- Prev by Date: Re: Age of the Earth
- Next by Date: Re: The Fruit Fly
- Previous by thread: Re: Mendel's Experiment
- Next by thread: Re: Mendel's Experiment