Why Are Evo's Ignorant of Mendelian?

reply to post by Howie47

That from he who has an avatar, that shows a baby being ripped from it's mothers arms, to be killed by the establishment.

Are you saying you don't like my baby picture?

And besides, Mummy and I were the establishment. I fear you lack the advantage of a classical education, Howie.

reply to post by Astyanax


What DOES your avatar mean?
I've wondered.
The romans killing the celts? Is Boudica involved?

In America, we mostly learned American history apart from college.(which I quit.)
Sorry to go 'off topic'.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by Clearskies]

reply to post by Astyanax


The products of a classical education are the proof of it's extreme (disadvantage). Unless its students immediately forget everything they are indoctrinated with, and start with a fresh clean mind. Once they inter the real world.

Your avatar depicts the, Roman establishment; killing all the babies of Bethlehem. To try and stop God's Christ from being born into the world.
The establishment, ( or those who tend to ascend to it's higher positions),
fight against that same Christ and His followers; to this very day. They often have your classical education!
You seem to me. to be. one with them! That is why I said: "You be on the wrong side"! The loosing side!

[edit on 21-5-2008 by Howie47]

Never mind Astyanax, I googled it;

1. Astyanax (Αστυάναξ) the son of Hector and Andromache. His real name was Scamandrius, but people of Troy nicknamed him Astyanax, because he was the son of Hector. He was killed during the Trojan War by Neoptolemus, who threw the infant from a wall and told his mother "Since my father (Achilles) killed his father (Hector) he might try to avenge the death. He also could become King of Troy, and we want no more kings of Troy!" (Iliad VI, 403, 466; Aeneid II, 457)

reply to post by Clearskies


I stand corrected then. Although it means Astyanax needs to change
his avatar. For he is sending an unclear meaning to most readers.
How many people are going to be familiar with that peace of art. Who
won't get it confused with.




OK, now back on subject please.

[edit on 21-5-2008 by Howie47]

reply to post by atlasastro


Didn't someone say, "the more I learn, the more I realize I don't know".
Or words to that effect? I like, "every learning, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth". seems to fit modern materialist sooooooo good.

reply to post by Clearskies

Thank you, Mrs. Clearskies, for saving me from having to go over, for the benefit of the unlearned, events that are still, as I am sure you will appreciate, painful to contemplate.

As for the sons of Aeneas, they are said to be of Ilian blood, but plainly not of mine, and I cannot be held to account for their crimes, whatever they might be.

this is turning into a very interesting post.

Originally posted by Howie47
reply to post by Howie47

 

If Evo's want to make claims, that changes in isolated populations are do to (mutations) and not Mendelian inheritance. Then they must provide the hard evidence of that. They must eliminate all the possibles that Mendelian inheritance isn't the source. Then show that mutation is the source. But they don't provide any support of their wild claim. They just say it must be true. Because classical evolution is true. Circular reasoning at it worst. Or best, depending on how you read it.
They also need to stop bemoaning their lack of a big enough laboratory or enough time to demonstrate classical Evolution experimentally. There are no and can be no exceptions to the rules of the scientific method. If scientific theories can't meet the criteria of that method. They remain, pseudoscience, and should be viewed as such................

Bacteria are ucapable of mendelian evolution, since they are haploid. Yet, they still evolve (resistance to antibiotics, reverse mutation lab experiments - there is your lab demonstration..).
The source is obviously mutation, not mendelian inhertance.

Evolutionists are not ignorant of Mendel. It is just insufficient to explain all changes we observe, because it does not include mutation.
If someone is ignorant here, its the creationists. Simple wiki search can prove all OPs points wrong.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Maslo]

reply to post by Howie47

Are people that believe in evolution ignorant of "Mendelian inheritance" on purpose, or they just not taught the, " core of classical genetics."

Umm... right, learn about what you want to argue about.

Darwinian natural selection was combined with Mendelian inheritance to form the modern evolutionary synthesis,[12] which connected the units of evolution (genes) and the mechanism of evolution (natural selection). This powerful explanatory and predictive theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, directing research and providing a unifying explanation for the diversity of life on Earth.

source

Can you point out the problem in your assertion yet?

reply to post by Maslo

Howie47, an elderly activist creationist, re-registered in March 2008 after what I suspect was a period of banning or suspension. He hasn't logged on to the site since June that year, so I doubt he's around to read our posts.

I think the creationism debate on ATS has moved on a bit since this thread was started. The creationists are learning, you see.

Is it just me, or did the op not notice the indian one wasn't a tortoise, but a turtle?
Check those links again people, turtles have flippers, tortoises have legs and feet.

Originally posted by Astyanax
I think the creationism debate on ATS has moved on a bit since this thread was started. The creationists are learning, you see.

you would think so ?

In fact I think creationist just get tried of dictators who are not open minded enough to accept any other truth but their own, even if it has not been proven.

I am waiting on the LHC myself, creationism has not gone anywhere, in fact it lives outside your door... just not on the back alleys of the internets.

LHC should provide some real controversy and debates, evolution is just weak and might I add old...

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
evolution is just weak and might I add old...

That's entirely inaccurate. With the accurate description of DNA in the late 50's, the Theory of Evolution has only become more resilient in its basis in science. DNA gave us a way to show how species are related, and how far back their genetic relation goes. It revolutionized taxonomy, and gave us an entirely new perspective of the diversity of micro-organisms.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
In fact I think creationist just get tried of dictators who are not open minded enough to accept any other truth but their own, even if it has not been proven.

That would be terribly ironic.

I am waiting on the LHC myself, creationism has not gone anywhere, in fact it lives outside your door... just not on the back alleys of the internets.

So creationism is that smelly wino out on the back stoop of the apartment?

LHC should provide some real controversy and debates, evolution is just weak and might I add old...

Spake the supporter of three thousand year old tribal mythology that considers otters a form of fish

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Astyanax
I think the creationism debate on ATS has moved on a bit since this thread was started. The creationists are learning, you see.

you would think so ?

There must have been a brief glimmer of hope back then, because the creationists are scraping the bottom of the barrel arguments these days.

In fact I think creationist just get tried of dictators who are not open minded enough to accept any other truth but their own, even if it has not been proven.

Hey look, a snide reference to me. Well, here's the thing, evolution is proven, we've provided you with evidence.

Oh, and I am open-minded to any position with evidence, something you've yet to provide. Hell, you haven't even given any reason to believe creationism. You haven't even defined your terms or explained what proof of evolution would be.

I am waiting on the LHC myself, creationism has not gone anywhere, in fact it lives outside your door... just not on the back alleys of the internets.

Yes, unfortunately it lives on in the minds of all those ignorant individuals who should really get a better scientific education.

LHC should provide some real controversy and debates, evolution is just weak and might I add old...

Um...the LHC has nothing to do with biology. At all.

And wow, it's old?
Gravitation is even older, let's toss that out.
Let's get rid of the laws of motion too.
Hmm...and heliocentric solar systems, that's soooo old.
Oh, let's get rid of the oldest one of all, creationism...yeah, you see how I turned your own argument against you?

And how is evolution weak? You keep claiming this repeatedly without backing up your statements.

Originally posted by Howie47

Darwinians are not. Why do you think they are?

Re-read my OP! Maybe your demonstrating the real problem with the Evolutionist mind set. They automaticaly filter out any information
that doesn't (fit) into their (pretend reality). When we were children pretend realities were OK. When children are dong so, no one takes them seriously. Adults need to grow up and stop pretending. At least when they are doing serious things.

Evolution does not ignore mendelian genetics. It incorporates it. Darwin had no clue of DNA, but when we discovered it it fit right in. It all works together.

And that's funny, Adults needing to grow up and stop pretending? Isn't that what this entire forum is about, pretending there's some big evil thing out to get us?

reply to post by AshleyD


AshleyD I am glad you are posting in this forum, as it seems, we need some reinforcements of your caliber at this point, the arrogance of the faithless needs to be countered.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Hate to break it to you...but that post was two years ago. Ash hasn't been on here in a long time.

As for this statement:

the arrogance of the faithless needs to be countered.

As I've repeatedly mentioned, even to you, evolution is accepted by a hell of a lot of theists, especially in the western world. Evolution is compatible with theism.

Also, what's arrogant about evolution? I'd say the theory itself is quite the opposite, especially when compared to creationism which puts forth that we are the most important thing in a universe that is infinitely larger than we are.