"There 's a huge hole in evolutionary theory and IÂ ’ m about to exploit it . IÂ ’ ve 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 Â “ evolutionÂ ” is not actually not evolution at all . Part of the problem 20th century scientists had was their definition of Â “ evolution.Â ” 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 thereÂ ’ s random genetic mutation , and thatÂ ’ s followed up by non-random natural selectionÂ….the two combine to have the effect of transmitting environmental Â “ fitnessÂ ” 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 . But thereÂ ’ s a hole . A gaping hole that nobody has seemed to exploit . And this hole bypasses both theories . WhatÂ ’ s the hole ? The hole is that inheritance of new traits is not necessary for Â “ evolution.Â ” 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 . The 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 thereÂ ’ s also no way to tell without close inspection if these traits are inherited or acquired . ItÂ ’ s 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 organismÂ ’ s genes and environment during development . Moths and butterflies are perfect example of this phenomenon . As 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 . ( 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 . ) But itÂ ’ s not just tadpoles ........ As well , rodents , will dine on a variety of seeds and nutsÂ…as 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 parentsÂ ’ 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 Â “ evolving.Â ” But genetics would have nothing to do with it Â– instead , it would simply be a cultural , environmental phenomenon . ItÂ ’ s 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 Â “ passed on.Â ” This is a bogus premise from the very start because itÂ ’ s not necessary for traits to be Â “ passed onÂ ” 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 . '' 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 ] Really the skyÂ ’ s the limit ; diet , terrain , movement , predators , weather , availability of resources , etc . Life is not about genes , Life is about life . The designer didnÂ ’ t create animals adapted to specific environments , He created them with an adaptive ability to evolve with a changing environment . This is not Â “ evolutionÂ ” itÂ ’ s 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 Â “ passed on.Â ” Traits need not be passed on to give the illusion of populational evolution . And whatÂ ’ s interesting is GouldÂ ’ s explanation for why Lamarckism is false ... this is very interesting and ties in directly to this : Of 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 Â “ environments or acquired adaptations can direct sex cells to mutate in specific directions.Â ” Life gets around that little scenario because each life is individually adaptive ... and adaptations start during development -- where his eyes could n't see -- or did n't want to . Life changes so rapidly -- if you blink you miss it ! Stephen , I know youÂ ’ re dead , but if you can somehow hear me , please note you have made a great errorÂ… .. you have a giant hole in your theory , which I have just exploited . ItÂ ’ s called Â “ The Environmental Evolution Revolution.Â ” Not 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 ."
"This is a very interesting post . You show a lot of knowledge and insight . It is quite long and I do n't think I understood all of it . Could you mention what is the most important point ? You 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 ."
"ve mentioned this before , but truly , mountains of books could be written on this subject ."
"You show a lot of knowledge and insight . It is quite long and I do n't think I understood all of it ."