Topic: Evolution
Quote: There\'s a huge hole in evolutionary theory and I\xe2\x80\x99m about to exploit it.\nI\xe2\x80\x99ve mentioned this before, but truly, mountains of books could be written on this subject. The subject, of course, is the illusion of evolution. My contention is that much of what is perceived as \xe2\x80\x9cevolution\xe2\x80\x9d is not actually not evolution at all.\nPart of the problem 20th century scientists had was their definition of \xe2\x80\x9cevolution.\xe2\x80\x9d Intellectual wars have been fought for the past 150 years about where new traits come from and how they get passed on. Regardless, each side has tried to explain how the information from the environment gets transmitted to offspring. On one side you have Darwinists, who claim that evolution is a two-step process. First there\xe2\x80\x99s random genetic mutation, and that\xe2\x80\x99s followed up by non-random natural selection\xe2\x80\xa6.the two combine to have the effect of transmitting environmental \xe2\x80\x9cfitness\xe2\x80\x9d to their offspring. Lamarckian inheritance, on the other hand, is a one-step process where the organism simply perceives the environment, adapts phenotypically and passes on these adaptations to their progeny.\nBut there\xe2\x80\x99s a hole. A gaping hole that nobody has seemed to exploit. And this hole bypasses both theories. What\xe2\x80\x99s the hole? The hole is that inheritance of new traits is not necessary for \xe2\x80\x9cevolution.\xe2\x80\x9d In other words, populational evolution does not require traits to be "passed on." This mantra is a giant straw man, as you will soon see, because much -- if not all -- of what we see in the field is merely a matter of environmental evolution.\nThe reality is that a change in phenotype is observed as evolution in the field and in the fossil record. But there is no way to tell from the fossils -- or from non-controlled scientific experiments -- whether new traits are caused by variation arising in the genotype or only from environmental effects acting on the phenotype. Not only that, but there\xe2\x80\x99s also no way to tell without close inspection if these traits are inherited or acquired. \nIt\xe2\x80\x99s well known that animal embryo development brings about a collaboration between the genetic program, internal signals from the mother, and external signals from the environment. Somehow the embryo processes this information and emerges accordingly. Therefore, the same genome can emerge with different phenotypes depending on environment or external circumstance. This is known as differentiation, and is simply the convergence of an organism\xe2\x80\x99s genes and environment during development. Moths and butterflies are perfect example of this phenomenon.\nAs well, tadpoles can not only change the size and shape of their heads, it\'s also known that the presence of predators can influence their tail size, shape, color, hatch times and general size of the organism. \n(Could this be why Neanderthals had their brow ridges? Since they had a slightly protruding face (as many in Europe still do), the exertion that no-doubt came from eating a diet heavy in meat (vigorous chewing) could very well have put pressure on the facial plates and brow ridges -- and as youngsters with soft bones, this diet help dictate their morphology.)\nBut it\xe2\x80\x99s not just tadpoles........\nAs well, rodents, will dine on a variety of seeds and nuts\xe2\x80\xa6as youngsters, if a population of mice come across a new food supply, they are all likely to all develop a morphology that suits such a diet. If this food is different than what their parents\xe2\x80\x99 ate, their morphology could be uniquely different than their parents. This new morphology would follow them until adulthood. If the food supply stuck around long enough time, it could give the appearance that the population was \xe2\x80\x9cevolving.\xe2\x80\x9d But genetics would have nothing to do with it \xe2\x80\x93 instead, it would simply be a cultural, environmental phenomenon. It\xe2\x80\x99s an environmental evolution, of sorts. Of course this leaves natural selection out of a job because the entire population would be evolving new, beneficial morphologies without it. Not only that but it bypasses the ridiculous premise that science has constructed for itself --- which says that new, beneficial traits have to be \xe2\x80\x9cpassed on.\xe2\x80\x9d This is a bogus premise from the very start because it\xe2\x80\x99s not necessary for traits to be \xe2\x80\x9cpassed on\xe2\x80\x9d for new morphologies to carry forward into future generations -- all that\'s needed is, in this case, for a specific diet to continue to be available to future generations -- which, of course, would carry on those particular traits.\n"We think licking affects a methylation enzyme that is ready and waiting for mother to start licking," Dr. Meaney said. In perilous times, mothers may be able to set the stress reactivity of their offspring by licking less. When there are fewer dangers around, the mothers may lick more. [/COLOR]\nReally the sky\xe2\x80\x99s the limit; diet, terrain, movement, predators, weather, availability of resources, etc. Life is not about genes, Life is about life. The designer didn\xe2\x80\x99t create animals adapted to specific environments, He created them with an adaptive ability to evolve with a changing environment.\nThis is not \xe2\x80\x9cevolution\xe2\x80\x9d it\xe2\x80\x99s an adaptive response. Of course, some say new beak shapes could have formed during development, but either way, selection is not required....it would be similar situation to the butterfly example I gave above. This of course, is just another example where it is not necessary for traits to be \xe2\x80\x9cpassed on.\xe2\x80\x9d Traits need not be passed on to give the illusion of populational evolution.\nAnd what\xe2\x80\x99s interesting is Gould\xe2\x80\x99s explanation for why Lamarckism is false...this is very interesting and ties in directly to this:\nOf course, Gould has set up a giant straw man that has been repeated relentlessly. The straw man is that it\'s not necessary pass on traits, for the reasons stated above....and it is not necessary that \xe2\x80\x9cenvironments or acquired adaptations can direct sex cells to mutate in specific directions.\xe2\x80\x9d Life gets around that little scenario because each life is individually adaptive...and adaptations start during development -- where his eyes couldn\'t see -- or didn\'t want to. Life changes so rapidly -- if you blink you miss it!\nStephen, I know you\xe2\x80\x99re dead, but if you can somehow hear me, please note you have made a great error\xe2\x80\xa6..you have a giant hole in your theory, which I have just exploited. It\xe2\x80\x99s called \xe2\x80\x9cThe Environmental Evolution Revolution.\xe2\x80\x9d\nNot only have I undercut your snails but I\'ve undercut most of what you and all your foolish friends say in your books. Evolution surely has a heritable component, but a huge portion of what is perceived as "evolution" in the field is not that at all. It\'s merely an illusion...and upon close inspection it disappears altogether....just like your theory. You see, there is NO EVIDENCE for natural selection sifting through random mutations. What is seen in the field today is not evidence for that, it\'s simply evidence that the environment is working on the genetic code of each creature.
Response: This is a very interesting post. You show a lot of knowledge and insight.\nIt is quite long and I don\'t think I understood all of it. Could you mention what is the most important point?\nYou make a good point that "evolution is merely an illusion." I am thinking about this and I want to ask you what you see as the ramifications from this. Looking forward to seeing more of your posts.
0.0