Do you think GREGOR MENDEL was sent just before DARWIN for a reason ?

Question

Did God had a sense of humour ? - a monk called Gregor Mendel actually ended up as THE FATHER OF GENETICS. Unlike Darwin's "blending theory" (proven false), he actually came up with his theory and proved it true through a practical application of probability, math and statistical methods. By contrast, Darwin and his followers have been unable to prove it for 120 YEARS. Such a theory would have entered the dustbin by now except that the only other viable theory available is that creatures were created by design by another entity and this is not acceptable to science.

Mistakes of Darwin - his theory of "blending" and complete ignorance of Gregor Mendel's work proving inheritance of traits (published only a few years before his own)

WHAT EVOLUTION MEANS

Darwin’s theory stated that evolution can change one type of organism into another. He also thought the father’s contribution “blended” with the mother’s, and that a trait which supports survival would become reproductively dominant over time. Darwin did not have a clear understanding of the laws of inheritance of such traits, because they were discovered a few years earlier by an Austrian monk, Gregor Mendel. In the 1900 geneticists incorporated Mendel’s four laws of inheritance into Darwin’s theory. They called the new theory “ neo-Darwinism “ in which the individual units of inheritance were generation to generation. For example, when Mendel crossed a pea plant having round seeds with one having wrinkled seeds, all the offspring in the first generation were round peas, not “blended.” The wrinkled seed gene was present, suppressed by the dominant round-seed gene. However, wrinkled peas appeared in one-quarter of the offspring in the second generation. Blended traits do not exist. Now we know that mutations cause chemicals changes to genes.

What Evolutionists Say We Ought to See
If neo-Darwinism were true we would expect to see strong evidence of change from one species to another (for example, ape to man, or descent with modification from a common ancestor). We should see the traits follow the genetic laws of Mendel and appear relatively stable from one generation to the next. However, dominant genes do not become more dominant as had been hoped by those favoring Darwinian evolution. Mendel’s laws of inheritance only explain microevolution, such as natural or domestic breeding of desirable changes or variations within plant and animal species.

For macroevolution to occur we ought to see something which dramatically changes the genes, something like gene mutation, a proposed mechanism to provide an increase in species complexity. We should see the effects of beneficial mutation and natural selection making significant changes in species. While mutations can be increased by heat, chemicals and radiation, most mutations are harmful. Most lead to structural impairment, genetic diseases and death. (The ratio of harmful to beneficial mutations is at least 10,000 to one.)

What We Actually Observe in Nature
We observe microevolution both in nature and through purposeful domestication within species. We do not observe macroevolution. Purposeful domestication (selective breeding) has been used to produce changes or desired variations within many species for more than 2000 years. Examples include cats, dogs, beef and milk cattle, race and plow horses, roses, wheat and corn. All have been changed through microevolution which follows Mendel’s law of inheritance, not the concept of blending traits envisioned by Darwin. Scientists admit macroevolution cannot be observed under natural conditions. If it happened, it occurred in the distant past and would be too slow to observe now.

However, in laboratory experiments, fruit flies have been altered to grow legs from there heads, one of many freakish major mutations possible. These changes were produced by large doses of radiation to greatly increase the mutation rate and alter genes. These changes neither created a new structure (just altering existed ones) nor changing the fly into a new kind of insect. These flies may breed under laboratory conditions, but cannot survive in nature because of this harmful mutation.

Davis writes, “Mutation does not introduce new levels of complexity, and it cannot be shown that it is a step in the right direction. Most observed mutations are harmful, and there is no experimental evidence to show that a new animal organism or even a novel structural feature has ever been produced from the raw material produced by mutations.



What Scientists Say

Some scientists promote evolution despite the lack of evidence. Others point out the failure of evolution. “There is no debate within the scientific community over whether evolution has occurred, and there is no evidence that evolution has not occurred,” writes the National Academy of Science of the U.S. In 1995, the American National Association of Biology Teachers stated, “The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of . . . descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance . . . and changing environments.”

Many secular scientists disagree. Pierre-Paul Grasse of the French Academy of Sciences writes, “ No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.” Molecular biologist Michael Denton says, “The failure to validate the Darwinian model has implications which reach far beyond biology.” Information theorist Hubert Yockey writes,” One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written (Information Theory and Molecular Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). Ferguson says, “Scientists are particularly loath to relinquish the last form of prejudice . . . It must be true because anything else would be unthinkable.” For example, Dawkins says, “ . . . the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation, and [we] both reject this alternative.


THE KICKER:

Charles Darwin had rascist theories that were linked directly to his THEORY of evolution. The followers of Charles Darwin considered him to be highly EVOLVED and called him a genius. His seminal work in this area led his cousin Francis to create theories of EUGENICS,(Francis, cousin of Darwin is called FATHER OF EUGENICS) widely employed by the Nazis to annihilate Jews, Gypsies and handicapped children in World War II and now actively followed by "Planned Parenthood" in America and other anti-human (or selective human) organizations. Interestingly Charles Darwin's children were all born sickly.

THEORY OF EVOLUTION - NO PROOF FOR OR AGAINST

WHY IT IS POPULAR?
Because the only other theory is intelligent design and creation by God and this cannot be accepted by science. Even then, the acceptance of evolution requires a leap of faith and an ability to see how random molecules or proteins came together even over millions of years, similar to that required in religion. Darwin might be called the "god" of atheists and rejecting their long-dead unproven god causes them to get angry just as it would any religionist.

Answer 1

You should read John Campbell's article "Rhetorical Analysis of Darwin's Origin".

Its kind of what's been happening in scientific thought since the beginning of science. Theories aren't always necessary accepted for the weight of the scientific evidence alone. Sociopolitical and religious ideologies play a great role in the receptivity of ideas. I recently wrote a paper on the influence of Malthusian population thoeries and the Ideas of Progress influencing Darwin along with a misinterpretion of Newton's mechanistic philosophies that contribued to the accptance of Darwin's theory.

Read also Michael Ruse's "Darwin and Design" or Peter Bowler's "Evolution: The History of an Idea" both talk about the great deal of rhetoric that went into the formulation of the theory.

Where one model, Mendel's model was able to make predictions, another model, which was purely theoretical (common descent still unproven) was accepted b/c it justified the Victorian's ideas regarding progress and the advancement of humankind, it also justified the population struggled described by Thomas Malthus.

It was similar to what happened with Johannes Kepler who in trying to convince the established scientific community of elliptical orbits and non uniform circular motion and his defense of Copernicus' heliocentrism, was largely ignored despite the fact his model was able to make accurate predictions, the same goes with the ancient Babylonians whose astronomy was able to make far better predictions than later Greek astronomy. The reasons for the rejection were mainly a result of the biases held by the established scientific community. It doesn't matter how truthful a particular theory may be or its ability to make accurate predictions, its about extrascientific factors and biases that allow for theories to be accepted or rejected.

And a reply to the last part of the question, though Darwin may be accused of being the "god" of the atheists he at best was a "muddled theist" according to a letter Darwin wrote to J. Hooker regarding his theological stance.

A good thorough read of primary sources is a good place to start when trying to understand the history of science.

--my two cents :)

Answer 2

Possible Exception to his laws of Inheritance.
In 2005, scientists at Purdue University discovered in arabidopsis an alternative to previously known mechanisms of DNA repair, which one scientist called a "parallel path of inheritance". It was observed in mutations of the HOTHEAD gene. Plants mutant in this gene exhibit organ fusion, and pollen can germinate on all plant surfaces, not just the stigma. After spending over a year eliminating simpler explanations, it was indicated that the plants "cached" versions of their ancestors' genetic code going back at least four generations, and used these records as templates to correct the HOTHEAD mutation and other Single nucleotide polymorphisms. The initial hypothesis proposed that the record may be RNA-based Since then, alternative models have been proposed which would explain the phenotype without requiring a new model of inheritance More recently the whole phenomenon is being challenged as being a simple artifact of pollen contamination. "When Jacobsen took great pains to isolate the plants, he couldn't reproduce the [reversion] phenomenon," notes Steven Henikoff. In response to the new finding, Lolle and Pruitt agree that Peng et al.'s did observe cross-pollination but note that some of their own data, such as double reversions of both mutant genes to the regular form, cannot be explained by cross pollination.

Answer 3

Not really. The thinking that led to the First Industrial Revolution produced the idea that the universe was essentially a machine obeying natural laws without divine intervention. Observation of living organisms was what led Mendel and Darwin to their theories, and others probably were aware of the same phenomena. Ideas seem to have a time which just comes. For instance, shortly after Joseph Swan had invented the light bulb, Thomas Edison -- who had never heard of Swan or his work -- independently invented pretty much the same thing. And the science of Public Key Cryptography was worked out at GCHQ in the 1970s and suppressed; but Rivest, Shamir and Adelman, without hearing of this, published a paper outlining essentially the same work in the 1980s.

Answer 4

I agree that there is no proof for intelligent design. However, evolution has mountains of evidence. Even without Darwin, the scientific evidence was mounting, and the theory would have emerged eventually, it was only his fortune that Wallace was not recognised widely as co-founder of the theory of natural selection. There is no evidence against evolution, just inconsistencies in how this evidence is interpreted, or ignored outright. Evolution is popular because it is logical and requires no leaps of faith, just an ability to look at and examine the evidence.

Lemarck, for all his faults, had a theory that physical attributes could be inherited, such as a giraffe reaching for leaves would result in a longer neck, and this would be inherited in its offspring. His theory had its supporters because it made sense, in a way. And it allowed for much more rapid evolutionary changes, which fit much neater into the religious theories of the age of the Earth.
But it was clearly wrong, and was proven so in the face of the much greater scientific logic of Natural Selection.

Whether Darwin was racist as you claim, or not, or what his relatives did, is entirely irrelevant. In any case, most of his work, namely on the Galapagos, involved animals such as finches and Tortoises, so racism hardly seems relevant.
His work and theory stand alongside the work of many others including Wallace, and other scientists who also worked, and still work in the field. It has been proved to be correct by every form of modern technology and science since Darwin. DNA analysis shows how all living things on this Earth have some DNA in common, from slugs to humans, and have shown that what we thought were our closest relatives, the apes, are in fact also closely related by DNA.

You promote the opinion of two scientists as representative of "many", yet dismiss the American Academy of Science and the Biology Teachers' Association, as if there was some conspiracy to stifle debate. There isn't. Anyone is free to present evidence, as the Intelligent Design promoters have been doing. They just don't present good evidence. Similarly, you have not suggested any evidence against evolution, you are just dismissing the work of scientists over many years, and saying that there is no evidence. I have found scientists are openminded and quite ready to view any evidence, but like Lemarck, theories are apt to be debunked and proved wrong. I just don't think this is going to happen to Natural Selection and Evolution.

Sorry, but you are misguided.

Answer 5

Sorry im short on time and just read the opening but some corrections, Mendal was not really before Darwin but almost coexisting. However, Darwin did not know of the works and so could not prove his natural selection and evolutionary theory using genetics. Also Darwin didn't believe in blending theory. He was the one who really somewhat skeptical of blending but didnt know how to prove what seem to be randomization of the genes. What really screwed up Darwin and encourgaed the skeptics was people like Lamark who thought on ideas like inhericance of acquired characteristics.

As for the rest of whether their is "proof" or not, I'm really intermediate. You make some good points.

Answer 6

Wow! Way to bend the truth. Darwin was not a racist. Eugenics is not evil, it is the basis of sexual reproduction. Darwin was not atheist. He didn't believe in blending theory.The reason we don't see macroevolution is because we haven't been given enough time to empircaly observe it, and the conditions required for macroevolution do not exist.

Evolution does not require a leap of faith, as it is supported by mountains of evidence. Religion requires the leap of faith, as NO evidence supports it. Rappunzel, Sampson, Jonas and the Whale Jack and the Bean stalk, Cane and Able. If you told these to kids they wouldn't be able to tell which stories were from "mother goose" if it weren't for the bible. Ironicly, Darwin married his cousin, which lead to his children being born "sickly" , as he was born "sickly" himself, and odds are his cousin had the recessive genes for the "sicklyness".
Mutation does not produce evolution huh? The sun doesn't provide light either, it's God's daily campfire.

Answer 7

Rather too long questions and answers! I must read Darwin and see what he did try to say. If my memory is right, his main idea was natural selection. The populations of those that can survive better increase. Since they definitely carry the genes that are responsible for their traits, they transmit them to the succeeding generations, increasing such populations further.

I do not see any contradiction!

Answer 8

Since when did there need to be a reason to exist? And to answer your question, no.

Answer 9

Yeah just to screw us all up into thinking they're right