Mendel wanted to do his experiments with rats but the church didn’t gave him enough money and support so he had to use peas. Rats genetics are way more complex that peas and it would be hard for him to get to any meaningful results using them.
Source?
What does this have to do with what you said?
I used https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=NgGLFozNM2o and did a ctl+F for “Mendel,” and there’s nothing
I remember learning about that in that video, if isn’t there then it could be in the podcast “History of philosophy without any gaps” but no idea in what episode.
We need more history memes
Sshhh, don’t tell anyone the church was a patron of the sciences. Ruins the narrative.
Scientist: we discovered this thanks to your funding
Church: Nice, now shut the fuck up, you are gonna ruin the racket.
Was. They didn’t like what they found though.
DAE SIENCE ONLY ATEIST CLUB?
RELEASE THE SQUARE
Another issue that Darwin had is that for the theory of evolution to work you need very long periods of time.
The problem is that it has been proved by the physicist William Thomson using cold hard maths that the earth cannot be older that few hundreds millions years, which is not compatible with Darwin’s theory.
History told us that Darwin was right and Thomson wrong but it did not appeared this way at the time.
It should also be noted that huge parts of the Church also rejected William Thomson’s age calculations for the Earth. Even though he massively underestimated its age, the Church asserted that the Earth was even younger.
Someone plz explain
“The Punnett square is a visual representation of Mendelian inheritance.”
Here is a paper that goes into the anomalies in Mendel’s data found by Fisher: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6823958/
9th grade genetics
In which country?
I’m pretty sure we were doing punnett squares in year 10 here in NZ.
We covered Mendel and Punnett squares in 9th grade biology here in the midwest US
We need a few more heroes and a lot more peas to solve some of these other problems:
Horizontal Gene Transfer upsets the conceptual “tree of life”, i.e. if genetics are not exclusively hereditary then it is impossible to determine a last universal common ancestor (LUCA).
Lack of a viable mechanism for producing the complex and specific information required to render the genetic code functional.
Failure of the fossil record to find support for Darwinian evolution (punctuated equilibrium, Cambrian explosion, etc).
Rampant examples of convergent evolution indicate extreme improbability.
Abiogenesis.
Biogeographical distribution irregularities.
Inaccurate predictions regarding so-called “junk DNA”, vestigial organs and endogenous retroviruses (ERV).
Epigenetics cannot be reduced to a mechanism, certainly not natural selection.
“Phenotypic Plasticity” - the correlation between genotypes and phenotypes are no longer 1:1.
Beneficial mutations are impossibly rare. In almost all cases, mutations are degenerative, as demonstrated by Richard Lenski’s bacteria experiment and Molly Burke’s fruit fly experiment - both published in Nature.
Missing link fallacy. We have much, much more evidence for evolution than we do for creation, but because we don’t have all the evidence, you choose to reject all of it in favour of theories that have even less evidence behind them.
Strawman fallacy. I’m not rejecting all of it in favor of creation. I’m citing a significant list of problems with the theory.
I’ve got another list of philosophical problems, if you’re interested. Not that the sciences give a damn about philosophy or epistemology anymore…
Lol at all the butthurt Darwinists
