Here's how I see it

[Shiner]

It's nice to find this forum.

I believe that God created each kind of organism with intelligent design and inherent wisdom. He also instilled each creature with an adaptive phenotype so that all created animals could multiply and fill the earth by spreading out into many different environments and habitats. The advantage of this is obvious: Rather than having to wait thousands or millions of years for the correct mutation to provide the necessary genes, God made it so animals can adjust themselves on-the-fly to changing environments.....and then if these environments continue, the biological adjustments will be passed on to future generations.

It's a brilliantly simple idea that science simply refuses to test. In fact, this concept petrifies evolutionists to the core. Have you ever noticed how neo-darwinists never even discuss adaptive phenotypes or the ability of new traits to arise during development via the environment? Never. Oh, occasionally you might hear the word "saltationism" or "Lamarckism" thrown about in a negative tone, but evolutionists rarely have the guts to face reality to dive into these subjects deeply. In fact, I have never read an in-debth discussion about plasticity or environmentally induced biological changes in a neo-darwinist's book. And it's not that these people are dumb.....They're just simply too afraid to go there, in fear of planting seeds in people's minds. Their whole world-view depends on people's faith in their thoery -- and that there are no reasonable alternatives. So they just play like the alternative isn't there.

But if it can shown that animals' evolve/change in a different way than what evolutionists say, then their theory must be overthrown. They say the evolution of new traits happens gradually through the population over thouands/millions of years through random mutation via selection...I say it happens instantly, within the lifetime of the individual animal...no selection needed.

I also say new traits emerge in offspring nonrandomly in response to environmental cues. These traits form during development or even afterwards during the lifetime of the animal. New traits can be a result of plasticity or in the form of mutation during development. If the mutation occurs in somatic cells, only the individual (parent) organism is affected. If the mutation occurs in the germ cell, the mutation may pass on to the next generation -- though not necessarily expressed in the parent in which it arose.

It's as simple as that.

Both of these mechanisms I present are not new...I did not dream them up. It's just that evolutionists choose to ignore them.

So here's my proof:

new traits (fur color) formed instantly in offspring via diet of mother:

http://www.biotech-info.net/moms_diet.html

new traits form (moth wing pattern) during development based on external conditions, including background colors. (see bottom picture.) By the way, this disproves the peppered moth as an example of "proof" of Natural Selection.

http://ourfcs.friendscentral.org/moths/ ... nism1.html

Can evolutionists lead me to a link where a controlled experiment on animals was done?....where they tested to see what traits formed upon an environemental change??

I'd also like to see a controlled test done on animals that shows Natural Selection in action.

[otseng]

Welcome to the forum Shiner.

Please see Tips on starting a debate topic when starting a topic in the debate category. All debate topics must have something to debate, rather than simply to discuss.

If you can provide a question for debate, I'll leave this thread as is. Otherwise, I'll be moving it into a more appropriate subforum. Thanks.

[Shiner]

Welcome to the forum Shiner.

Please see Tips on starting a debate topic when starting a topic in the debate category. All debate topics must have something to debate, rather than simply to discuss.

If you can provide a question for debate, I'll leave this thread as is. Otherwise, I'll be moving it into a more appropriate subforum. Thanks.

Goodness....I figured evolutionists would find plenty to debate in there. If what I've proposed is true then the neo-darwin empire must fall.

This post brings Lamarckism to the forefront. It also brings up the issue of why scientists have abandoned the organism as a scientifically testable entity. It also proposes two new mechanisms for evolution: plasticity and the forming of new traits during development based on external conditions. I also think gradualism is a fairytale.

I'll be glad to debate any of that. Take care. S

[otseng]

There is certainly material for debate, but as a formality, it should be presented as questions. Sorta like in Jeopordy, answers needs to be presented as a question. So, an example would be, "Is rapid evolution possible?"

[Goat]

It's nice to find this forum.

I believe that God created each kind of organism with intelligent design and inherent wisdom. He also instilled each creature with an adaptive phenotype so that all created animals could multiply and fill the earth by spreading out into many different environments and habitats. The advantage of this is obvious: Rather than having to wait thousands or millions of years for the correct mutation to provide the necessary genes, God made it so animals can adjust themselves on-the-fly to changing environments.....and then if these environments continue, the biological adjustments will be passed on to future generations.

It's a brilliantly simple idea that science simply refuses to test. In fact, this concept petrifies evolutionists to the core. Have you ever noticed how neo-darwinists never even discuss adaptive phenotypes or the ability of new traits to arise during development via the environment? Never. Oh, occasionally you might hear the word "saltationism" or "Lamarckism" thrown about in a negative tone, but evolutionists rarely have the guts to face reality to dive into these subjects deeply. In fact, I have never read an in-debth discussion about plasticity or environmentally induced biological changes in a neo-darwinist's book. And it's not that these people are dumb.....They're just simply too afraid to go there, in fear of planting seeds in people's minds. Their whole world-view depends on people's faith in their thoery -- and that there are no reasonable alternatives. So they just play like the alternative isn't there.

But if it can shown that animals' evolve/change in a different way than what evolutionists say, then their theory must be overthrown. They say the evolution of new traits happens gradually through the population over thouands/millions of years through random mutation via selection...I say it happens instantly, within the lifetime of the individual animal...no selection needed.

I also say new traits emerge in offspring nonrandomly in response to environmental cues. These traits form during development or even afterwards during the lifetime of the animal. New traits can be a result of plasticity or in the form of mutation during development. If the mutation occurs in somatic cells, only the individual (parent) organism is affected. If the mutation occurs in the germ cell, the mutation may pass on to the next generation -- though not necessarily expressed in the parent in which it arose.

It's as simple as that.

Both of these mechanisms I present are not new...I did not dream them up. It's just that evolutionists choose to ignore them.

So here's my proof:

new traits (fur color) formed instantly in offspring via diet of mother:

http://www.biotech-info.net/moms_diet.html

new traits form (moth wing pattern) during development based on external conditions, including background colors. (see bottom picture.) By the way, this disproves the peppered moth as an example of "proof" of Natural Selection.

http://ourfcs.friendscentral.org/moths/ ... nism1.html

Can evolutionists lead me to a link where a controlled experiment on animals was done?....where they tested to see what traits formed upon an environemental change??

I'd also like to see a controlled test done on animals that shows Natural Selection in action.

The tests between larmarkism and natural selection has been done many times. Larmakism has been disproven over and over again.. yet natural selection has not been falsified.

Your two articles say nothing about natural selection vs lamarkism. The first one details on how during fetal development, nutrients can effect development, and might effect what genes are turned on when in some minor situations. This hardly 'proves' Lamarkism, or disproves natural selection at all.

When it comes your second article, the error you are making in saying that it 'disproves' the peppered moth example is that the peppered moth
does not change color with seasons.

A laborotory experiment that shows natural selection the beta-galactosidase (ebg) experiment by Barry Hall of Rochester University in 1982.

[Shiner]

The tests between larmarkism and natural selection has been done many times. Larmakism has been disproven over and over again.. yet natural selection has not been falsified.

I don't believe that. Please show me where an experiment where an animal was moved to a different location (lets say for instance, moving a dog to the Outback in Australia) allowed to live and breed there for a few generations without interbreeding with any local animals, and see what happens to the future offspring. Do they lose their coats? Change colors? Grow longer limbs? Get taller? Bigger? thinner? If you can point me to such an experiment then I will be duly impressed because I submit that an experiment of the sort has never been done. And for very good reason -- because the result would destroy neodarwinism.

Your two articles say nothing about natural selection vs lamarkism. The first one details on how during fetal development, nutrients can effect development, and might effect what genes are turned on when in some minor situations. This hardly 'proves' Lamarkism, or disproves natural selection at all.

My first link shows how the mom's DIET induces new traits in offspring. Some would refer to this as Lamarckism. But do you care to explain how this fits under neodarwinism? I thought traits were to arise randomly -- only to be later selected...? Can you point me to a darwinian site to explain this?


When it comes your second article, the error you are making in saying that it 'disproves' the peppered moth example is that the peppered moth
does not change color with seasons.

Look at the bottom picture (as I suggested in my OP)....the fact is, moths emerge from the egg pre-adapted according to background conditions. I submit animals do not need to go through death in order to evolve new traits.

A laborotory experiment that shows natural selection the beta-galactosidase (ebg) experiment by Barry Hall of Rochester University in 1982.[/quote]

That's not what I asked for. I asked for a controlled experiment on animals so I can see the result with my own eyes. I submit you will not be able to find one.

[Goat]

The tests between larmarkism and natural selection has been done many times. Larmakism has been disproven over and over again.. yet natural selection has not been falsified.

I don't believe that. Please show me where an experiment where an animal was moved to a different location (lets say for instance, moving a dog to the Outback in Australia) allowed to live and breed there for a few generations without interbreeding with any local animals, and see what happens to the future offspring. Do they lose their coats? Change colors? Grow longer limbs? Get taller? Bigger? thinner? If you can point me to such an experiment then I will be duly impressed because I submit that an experiment of the sort has never been done. And for very good reason -- because the result would destroy neodarwinism.

And why do you think that would happen. As a matter of fact, yes, things liek that have happened. Look at the rabbit. How much as the rabbit changed in the new environment in Australia. It is not native to that area.
Then, there are zebra muscels , that got introduced into the environment
by hitching a ride on ships.



Your two articles say nothing about natural selection vs lamarkism. The first one details on how during fetal development, nutrients can effect development, and might effect what genes are turned on when in some minor situations. This hardly 'proves' Lamarkism, or disproves natural selection at all.

My first link shows how the mom's DIET induces new traits in offspring. Some would refer to this as Lamarckism. But do you care to explain how this fits under neodarwinism? I thought traits were to arise randomly -- only to be later selected...? Can you point me to a darwinian site to explain this?

No, the diet did not induce new traits.. it influneced which genes were turned on when. It did not create new traits. The genes were already there.

When it comes your second article, the error you are making in saying that it 'disproves' the peppered moth example is that the peppered moth
does not change color with seasons.

Look at the bottom picture (as I suggested in my OP)....the fact is, moths emerge from the egg pre-adapted according to background conditions. I submit animals do not need to go through death in order to evolve new traits.

It is not going through DEATH that is getting new life. It is suriviving to reproduce. Your assumptions about how natural selection work are incorrect.

A laborotory experiment that shows natural selection the beta-galactosidase (ebg) experiment by Barry Hall of Rochester University in 1982.

That's not what I asked for. I asked for a controlled experiment on animals so I can see the result with my own eyes. I submit you will not be able to find one.[/quote]

That is a controlled expermeint you can do yourself. It is repeatble. It is a standard experiment that they give biology students in college to demonstrate how new traits can evolve.

[Shiner]

And why do you think that would happen. As a matter of fact, yes, things liek that have happened. Look at the rabbit. How much as the rabbit changed in the new environment in Australia. It is not native to that area.
Then, there are zebra muscels , that got introduced into the environment
by hitching a ride on ships.

hmmm......here's what I said: Would you care to address that as opposed to changing the subject to an after-the-fact observation?

I don't believe that. Please show me where an experiment where an animal was moved to a different location (lets say for instance, moving a dog to the Outback in Australia) allowed to live and breed there for a few generations without interbreeding with any local animals, and see what happens to the future offspring. Do they lose their coats? Change colors? Grow longer limbs? Get taller? Bigger? thinner? If you can point me to such an experiment then I will be duly impressed because I submit that an experiment of the sort has never been done. And for very good reason -- because the result would destroy neodarwinism.




[

My first link shows how the mom's DIET induces new traits in offspring. Some would refer to this as Lamarckism. But do you care to explain how this fits under neodarwinism? I thought traits were to arise randomly -- only to be later selected...? Can you point me to a darwinian site to explain this?

No, the diet did not induce new traits.. it influneced which genes were turned on when. It did not create new traits. The genes were already there.

What? The dog's coats differed according to what their mom ate. My point is it is not the genes that create the traits. The genes were the same. The traits were different. This does not jive with your thoery. Now I'll ask again -- will you please guide me to a neo-darwin site that explains this....


Look at the bottom picture (as I suggested in my OP)....the fact is, moths emerge from the egg pre-adapted according to background conditions. I submit animals do not need to go through death in order to evolve new traits.
[/quote]

It is not going through DEATH that is getting new life. It is suriviving to reproduce. Your assumptions about how natural selection work are incorrect.

Ok....let's try again. The moths emerged from the egg according to background conditions. This invalidates the notion that "selection" formed the traits of peppered moths -- who also formed new triats to match their background. Sorry you cannot get around this.




That's not what I asked for. I asked for a controlled experiment on animals so I can see the result with my own eyes. I submit you will not be able to find one.[/quote]

That is a controlled expermeint you can do yourself. It is repeatble. It is a standard experiment that they give biology students in college to demonstrate how new traits can evolve.[/quote]

It's not what I asked for. If they are so confident that this proves natural selection then why can't they repeat it on an animal?

You know why they don't?? It's because this is not an example of natural selection...it's an example of an adaptive phenotype working off an environmental change. Scientists know this...which is why they refuse to do it on animals. They know what the result would be....and they could not fool people with the outcome.

This is why I asked for an experiment on animals. Can you show me one?

[Goat]

And why do you think that would happen. As a matter of fact, yes, things liek that have happened. Look at the rabbit. How much as the rabbit changed in the new environment in Australia. It is not native to that area.
Then, there are zebra muscels , that got introduced into the environment
by hitching a ride on ships.

hmmm......here's what I said: Would you care to address that as opposed to changing the subject to an after-the-fact observation?

I don't believe that. Please show me where an experiment where an animal was moved to a different location (lets say for instance, moving a dog to the Outback in Australia) allowed to live and breed there for a few generations without interbreeding with any local animals, and see what happens to the future offspring. Do they lose their coats? Change colors? Grow longer limbs? Get taller? Bigger? thinner? If you can point me to such an experiment then I will be duly impressed because I submit that an experiment of the sort has never been done. And for very good reason -- because the result would destroy neodarwinism.




[

My first link shows how the mom's DIET induces new traits in offspring. Some would refer to this as Lamarckism. But do you care to explain how this fits under neodarwinism? I thought traits were to arise randomly -- only to be later selected...? Can you point me to a darwinian site to explain this?

No, the diet did not induce new traits.. it influneced which genes were turned on when. It did not create new traits. The genes were already there.

What? The dog's coats differed according to what their mom ate. My point is it is not the genes that create the traits. The genes were the same. The traits were different. This does not jive with your thoery. Now I'll ask again -- will you please guide me to a neo-darwin site that explains this....


Look at the bottom picture (as I suggested in my OP)....the fact is, moths emerge from the egg pre-adapted according to background conditions. I submit animals do not need to go through death in order to evolve new traits.

It is not going through DEATH that is getting new life. It is suriviving to reproduce. Your assumptions about how natural selection work are incorrect.

Ok....let's try again. The moths emerged from the egg according to background conditions. This invalidates the notion that "selection" formed the traits of peppered moths -- who also formed new triats to match their background. Sorry you cannot get around this.




That's not what I asked for. I asked for a controlled experiment on animals so I can see the result with my own eyes. I submit you will not be able to find one.[/quote]

That is a controlled expermeint you can do yourself. It is repeatble. It is a standard experiment that they give biology students in college to demonstrate how new traits can evolve.[/quote]

It's not what I asked for. If they are so confident that this proves natural selection then why can't they repeat it on an animal?

You know why they don't?? It's because this is not an example of natural selection...it's an example of an adaptive phenotype working off an environmental change. Scientists know this...which is why they refuse to do it on animals. They know what the result would be....and they could not fool people with the outcome.

This is why I asked for an experiment on animals. Can you show me one?[/quote]

And you think bacteria are plants?? Minerals?

The advantage that bacteria have is they have short lifespans.

However, for an animal

The best-documented creation of new species in the laboratory was performed by W.R. Rice and G.W. Salt in the 1980s and described in their paper.. Rice and Salt bred fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster, using a maze with three different choices such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies which came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After 35 generations, the two groups and their offspring would not breed with each other even when doing so was their only opportunity to reproduce.

Rice, W.R. and G.W. Salt (1988). "Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence". The American Naturalist 131: 911-917.

That is the mechanism of evolution in action.

[Grumpy]

Shiner

This is why I asked for an experiment on animals. Can you show me one?

Goat actually told you of two.

The rabbit was introduced into the Outback in the 1800's and have diverged from the parent stock in 200 years.

Bacteria are also animals. They breed rapidly so each generation is only a few days. Genetic changes happen very rapidly and are observed in the lab. If you were truly interested in learning anything at all about evolution you could do that experiment yourself. I see no evidence you know the first thing about the subject, so I expect you are not willing to learn anything.

Grumpy