[BaseballMan]

Your guy completely missed the point on this one. It seems he only took what he thought has occurred in science and twisted it to fit his viewpoint.

Mendel's discoveries did not conflict with Darwin's evolution, they merely solved a problem with the theory. Darwin believed in blending inheritance, i.e if one parent is tall and the other is short they will produce medium sized children, and all children from then on will be medium sized. This seemed plausible, but it isn't quite true. What we now know thanks to Mendel's discoveries is that genes must separate during gamete (sex cell) formation. There may be two or more forms of these genes (alleles), some genes (dominant) may mask the effect of other genes (recessive). Mendel believed this all happened by chance, or independent assortment, but we now that's not all that can happen.

Mendel's studies showed the genes may mix to produce an intermediate phenotype (the observed characteristics of a gene), but the gene is not lost or blended.

Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, and Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolution, were contemporaries. At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant. While Darwin’s ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendel’s conclusions were based on careful experimentation. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution.

To help us develop a new biology based on creation rather than evolution, let us sample some of the evidence from genetics, arranged under the four sources of variation: environment, recombination, mutation, and creation.

To read further click:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation...netics.asp