General Theory of Evolution

[B][QUOTE]What you failed to realize is that Mendelism works *against* upward evolution, and shattered a powerful weapon of evolution accepted by many at the time of Darwin (including Darwin), Lamarckism.[/B][/QUOTE]As Percy has rightly pointed out, there is no such postulate as "upward evolution" in the general theory of evolution. Lamarck's particualr theory required it, and for this reason among others it was roundly rejected by Darwin.
[B][QUOTE]From Mendelism we learned that there is a 50% barrier for every new mutation that occurs in an organism. In other words, only half the offspring will get the mutation.[/B][/QUOTE]Only true if you are talking about variation passed through DNA. There are other forms of heritable variation - epigenetic processes have a role to play which is only just being realized and processes are also known which affect the germ cells (variation even unto the next generation, as your favourite tome might put it) such as those well-recorded effects on the size of the grandchildren of Dutch women who suffered in the famine of WWII
[B][QUOTE]This problem totally goes away if Lamarckism were true. But we know Lamarckism is false, and we know Mendelism is established fact.[/B][/QUOTE]Except that there are processes which, as I have said, lie outside the Mendelian constraints [/B]and[/B] there is a wheen of scientists who indeed hold some form of Lamarckism to be true; I recommend Steele, Lindley and Blanden's "Lamarck’s Signature: How Retrogenes are Chainging Darwin’s Natural Selection Paradigm" Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1998.But it still ain't no "upward" evolution. [B][QUOTE]I did elaborate. In a nutshell, your illusion is that a lizard changing into a lizard means that a lixard can turn into a bird. You make the false extrapolation that if micro-evolution is true, then so is macro-evolution.[/B][/QUOTE]Your illusion, Fred, is that a bird is not a lizard. Lizard, bird, dinosaur, whatever, are merely terms to identify useful graduations (taxonomically delineated) of a continuum. That's not to say a bird is exactly a lizard, just that lizardness and birdness are not mutually exclusive properties.[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 09-26-2002]