Acquired Characteristics

Acquired characteristics—characteristics gained after birth—cannot be
inherited (a). For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a
weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child. Nor did
giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach
high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired
characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this
false belief.  On occasion, Darwin did (b).

However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause
their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are
not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery
already present (c). The marvel is that optimalc genetic machinery
already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the
environment, or “a need” can produce the machinery (d).

Also, rates of variation within a species (microevolution, not
macroevolution) increase enormously when organisms are under stress,
such as starvation (e). Stressful situations would have been
widespread in the centuries after a global flood.

a. The false belief that acquired characteristics can be inherited,
called Lamarckism, would mean that the environment can directly and
beneficially change egg and sperm cells. Only a few biologists try to
justify Lamarckism. The minor acquired characteristics they cite have
no real significance for any present theory of organic evolution. For
example, see “Lamarck, Dr. Steel and Plagiarism,” Nature, Vol. 337, 12
January 1989, pp. 101–102.

b. “This hypothesis [which Darwin called pangenesis] maintained the
idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics.” A. M. Winchester,
Genetics, 5th edition (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1977), p. 24.

c.	“... it is a perplexing evolutionary question how a population
might move to a different local optimum without an intervening period
of reduced fitness (adaptive valley).” Christine Queitsch et al.,
“Hsp90 as a Capacitor of Phenotypic Variation,” Nature, Vol. 417, 6
June 2002, p. 623.

d. “... genes that were switched on in the parent to generate the
defensive response are also switched on in the offspring.” Erkki
Haukioja, “Bite the Mother, Fight the Daughter,” Nature, Vol. 401, 2
September 1999, p. 23.

“... non-lethal exposure of an animal to carnivores, and a plant to a
herbivore, not only induces a defence, but causes the attacked
organisms to produce offspring that are better defended than offspring
from unthreatened parents.” Anurag A. Agrawal et al.,
“Transgenerational Induction of Defences in Animals and Plants,”
Nature, Vol. 401, 2 September 1999, p. 60.

“... hidden genetic diversity exists within species and can erupt when
[environmental] conditions change.” John Travis, “Evolutionary
Shocker?: Stressful Conditions May Trigger Plants and Animals to
Unleash New Forms Quickly,” Science News, Vol. 161, 22 June 2002, p.
394.

“Environmental stress can reveal genetic variants, presumably because
it compromises buffering systems. If selected for, these uncovered
phenotypes can lead to heritable changes in plants and animals
(assimilation).” Queitsch et al., p. 618.

e. Marina Chicurel, “Can Organisms Speed Their Own Evolution?”
Science, Vol. 292, 8 June 2001, pp. 1824–1827.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences5.html#wp1008764

On May 26, 11:51 am, Pah...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's move along, folks.
Nothing to see here
Hewy

The only time creation and science should EVER be used in the
same sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between
them

Pahu78@gmail.com wrote:
> Acquired Characteristics
> ...snip... 

You post some fascinating material, which deserves some follow up.

Evolution is a wonderful process and our evolution through common 
descent, and the science of understanding evolutionary development 
is a gripping read. For anyone wanting to extend their 
understanding, I can recommend any of the books by Richard Dawkins, 
who's specialist subject is evolutionary biology.

http://shorterlink.co.uk/14368

The original link given in the post appears to be little more than 
an advert for the book "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for 
Creation and the Flood" by Dr. Walt Brown.

Walt Brown, of course, is an expert in evolution, as he received his 
Ph.D. in mechanical engineering. I'm not sure whether to laugh of cry!

You'll find out infinitely more about evolution by following the 
link to Richard Dawkins books above.

regards, Ian

In article <q-WdnT0THLYXtabVnZ2dnUVZ8tvinZ2d@posted.plusnet>, 
news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com says...

<snip>

> Evolution is a wonderful process and our evolution through common 
> descent, and the science of understanding evolutionary development 
> is a gripping read.

You don't even need to read about it.

I see it everywhere. It's a bit looking for a plant - you need to 'get 
your eye in'. First of all you don't see the plant, but once you've 
spotted one or two, you start seeing them everywhere.

We're surrounded by evolution, and as part of it we're so deeply 
immersed in it we hardly notice it. It's like the air we breath.

Whilst evolution is only a theory and can never be proven, for everday 
purposes and 'the man on the Clapham omnibus' it's as solid as 1+1=2

Jim Ford

X-No-Archive: yes


"Jim Ford"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.22a5dc355d3a49b59896a7@news.virginmedia.com...
> In article <q-WdnT0THLYXtabVnZ2dnUVZ8tvinZ2d@posted.plusnet>,
> news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com says...
>
> <snip>
>
>> Evolution is a wonderful process and our evolution through common
>> descent, and the science of understanding evolutionary development
>> is a gripping read.
>
> You don't even need to read about it.
>
> I see it everywhere. It's a bit looking for a plant - you need to 'get
> your eye in'. First of all you don't see the plant, but once you've
> spotted one or two, you start seeing them everywhere.

Oh, I get that when I buy a new car in a particular colour........!!
Suddenly everyone seems to have the same car in the same colour, where 
before,  there were next to none....


> We're surrounded by evolution, and as part of it we're so deeply
> immersed in it we hardly notice it. It's like the air we breath.

> Whilst evolution is only a theory and can never be proven, for everday
> purposes and 'the man on the Clapham omnibus' it's as solid as 1+1=2

Yes... but there is pretty compelling evidence already that evolution has, 
and is, taking place.
I think genetic research has opened a whole new window into how dna has been 
passed down millenia and through species.....very compelling



Mark

Jim Ford wrote:
> In article <q-WdnT0THLYXtabVnZ2dnUVZ8tvinZ2d@posted.plusnet>, 
> news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com says...
> 
> <snip>
> 
>> Evolution is a wonderful process and our evolution through common 
>> descent, and the science of understanding evolutionary development 
>> is a gripping read.
> 
> You don't even need to read about it.

Oh, I think the people that this was intended for do need to read 
about it.

The problem is, they won't read about it because they know that the 
knowledge will threaten, and most likely unhinge, their cherished 
beliefs.

regards, Ian

On Tue, 27 May 2008 09:53:04 +0100, Jim Ford
 wrote:

>In article <q-WdnT0THLYXtabVnZ2dnUVZ8tvinZ2d@posted.plusnet>, 
>news0807REMOVECAPS@orrery.e4ward.com says...
>
><snip>
>
>> Evolution is a wonderful process and our evolution through common 
>> descent, and the science of understanding evolutionary development 
>> is a gripping read.
>
>You don't even need to read about it.
>
>I see it everywhere. It's a bit looking for a plant - you need to 'get 
>your eye in'. First of all you don't see the plant, but once you've 
>spotted one or two, you start seeing them everywhere.
>
>We're surrounded by evolution, and as part of it we're so deeply 
>immersed in it we hardly notice it. It's like the air we breath.
>
>Whilst evolution is only a theory and can never be proven, for everday 
>purposes and 'the man on the Clapham omnibus' it's as solid as 1+1=2

It's a fact. The observations that were labelled evolution will never
go away.

The theory is the explanation for the fact.

>Jim Ford

Ken wrote:
> The only time creation and science should EVER be used in the
> same sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between
> them
Ken, seriously, stop posting this fucking thing!

On May 27, 8:30 am, The Magpie  wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> > The only time creation and science should EVER be used in the
> > same sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between
> > them
>
> Ken, seriously, stop posting this fucking thing!

It's a sure thing..............just as soon as Pahu stops posting his
daily CCPed creationut stupidity

Ken wrote:
> On May 27, 8:30 am, The Magpie  wrote:
>> Ken wrote:
>>> The only time creation and science should EVER be used in the
>>> same sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between
>>> them
>> Ken, seriously, stop posting this fucking thing!
> 
> It's a sure thing..............just as soon as Pahu stops posting his
> daily CCPed creationut stupidity

Look, its your choice. But he is on my killfile because of his posts. 
I would rather not you join him for essentially the same reason, even 
if from the other side of the fence.

On May 31, 9:25 am, The Magpie  wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> > On May 27, 8:30 am, The Magpie  wrote:
> >> Ken wrote:
> >>> The only time creation and science should EVER be used in the
> >>> same sentence is when the words "is not" has been inserted between
> >>> them
> >> Ken, seriously, stop posting this fucking thing!
>
> > It's a sure thing..............just as soon as Pahu stops posting his
> > daily CCPed creationut stupidity
>
> Look, its your choice. But he is on my killfile because of his posts.
> I would rather not you join him for essentially the same reason, even
> if from the other side of the fence.

I do understand..Ken