"Except that it does nothing of the sort ... But then , what can we expect from somebody citing a website trying to sell you liquid vitamin supplement ... Nevertheless , we look into the Pottenger 's cats claim . Here is a page called , `` Lesson of the Pottenger 's Cats Experiment : cats are not humans. `` Although it 's a page aimed at explaining why this `` experiment `` is not applicable to humans , it exposes the other , erm , flaws in this experiment . The one striking me based on the wikipedia list of diets for the groups should be obvious to everyone : many of these cats were being deprived of protein . This page confirms and elaborates . In fact , its first point is that today 's cats have no problem reproducing for several generations on today 's cooked food . The difference is that good owners do n't feed their pets deficient diets . The real irony here is that this experiment -- were it reliable -- would be the antithesis of supersport 's Lamarckism . In order for supersport to be supported , the cats being fed inadequate diets would re-develop those broken pathways for manufacturing essential amino acids . Obviously , they did not . The only thing we see here is the effect of poor ( i.e . positively malnutritive ) diet . We can conclude that supersport 's Morton 's demon is pretty much in full control . There 's no other explanation for somebody seeing this experiment and thinking it supports Lamarckism , or even counters evolutionary theory , even if he does n't know the basics of experimentation and nutrition ."
"The reality is this is no different the following link : ie ... the animals who were fed one diet passed on traits differently than those who were fed another diet . Traits , according to evolutionists arise RANOCMLY . Get that , geniuses ? RANDOMLY . This is not random . Structural damage in this case did not happen randomly .... nor did the dengenerative effects to the fur , nervous systems , bones , allergies , and mental processes . Instead this was all dictated by the environment . Thus , despite the emergence of new traits in the milk/cooked food-fed diet of the one population , it had nothing to do with darwinian random mutation or natural selection . This is a hole . A huge hole .... it 's environmental evolution ... that is , animals simply changing with a changing environment . Lamarckism predicts that the environment changes first , followed up by new traits . Neo-darwinists say that new traits arise before and/or unoriented to the environment , only to be then be selected . I win . And this is no different than the following : http : //www.the-scientist.com/2004/7/5/14/1/ Normally , the fur of agouti mice is yellow , brown , or a calico-like mixture of the two , depending on the number of attached methyl groups . But when Duke University researchers Jirtle and Waterland fed folic acid and other methyl-rich supplements to pregnant mothers , despite the fact that all offspring inherited exactly the same agouti gene ( i.e. , with no nucleotide differences ) , mice who received supplements had offspring with mostly brown fur , whereas mice without supplements gave birth to mostly yellow pups with a higher susceptibility to obesity , diabetes , and cancer . LAMARCKJean-Baptiste Lamarck ( 1744Â–1829 ) The environmental ability of epigenetic inheritance may not necessarily bring to mind Lamarckian images of giraffes stretching their necks to reach the treetops ( and then giving birth to progeny with similarly stretched necks ) , but it does give researchers reason to reconsider long-refuted notions about the inheritance of acquired characteristics . Eighteenth-century French naturalist Jean Baptiste de Lamarck proposed that environmental cues could cause phenotypic changes transmittable to offspring . Checkmate , losers . Oh , and by the way , electro-loser ..... it does n't matter if this diet experiment can be extrapolated to humans or not . ( Of course I realize you are just spouting your mouth off just to hear your head rattle ) ... the reality is , though , these cats evolved new traits by way of non-darwinian mechanisms . So did the mice in both experiments and so did the pigs . Are you truly trying to tell me that cats and mice and pigs evolve by way of the inheritance of acquired characteristics but humans do n't ?"
"Except that it does nothing of the sort"
"Get that , geniuses ? RANDOMLY"