Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lamarckism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lamarckism

    I just bought a new book that has a lot of great information in it. It is called The Evolution Handbook compiled by Vance Ferrell. I know that people often come to this forum asking how they can counter evolutionary arguments. So I thought as I read through this book, if I find something that is short and to the point, I would post it on here and if nothing else it will be an interesting read. The book is basically a lot of facts compiled (about 3,000) that show the origins of Evolution, and all of the gaps and mistakes in it. When I type up these segments I am going to type them exactly the way they are written in this book.

    this exert from Chapter 1 History of Evolutionary Theory

    Jean Baptist Lamarck (1744-1829) made a name for himself by theorizing. He accomplished little else of significance. He laid the foundation of modern evolutionary theory, which is his concept of "inheritance of acquired characteristics," which was later given the name Lamarckism. In 1809, he published a book, Philosophie zoologique, in which he declared that the giraffe got its long neck by stretching it up to reach the higher branches, and that birds that lived in water grew webbed feet. According to that, if you pull hard on your feet you will gradually increase thier length; and, if you decide in your mind to do so you can grow hair on your bald head, and your offspring will never be bald. Is this science?

    August Friedrich Leopold Weismann (1834-1914) was a German biologist who disproved Lamarck's notion of "the inheritance of acquired characteristics." He is primarily remembered as the scientist who cut the tails off of 901 young white mice in 19 successive generations, yet each new generations was born with a full length tail. Te final generation, he reported, had tails as long as those originally measured on the first. Weismann also carried out other experiments that buttressed his refutation of Lamarckism. His discoveries, along with the fact that circumcision of Jewish males for 4,000 years had not affected the foreskin, doomed the theory (Jean Rostand, Orion book of Evolution, 1960, p. 64). Yet Lamarckism continues today as the disguised basic of evolutionary biology. For example, evolutionists still teach that giraffes kept stretching thier necks to reach higher branches, so thier necks became longer! In a later book, Darwin abandoned natural selection as unworkable, and returned to Lamarckism as the cause of never-observed change from one species to another (Randall Hedtke, The Secret of the Sixth Edition, 1984).

    (1940s) Darwin originally wrote that random activity naturally selects itself into improvements.
    In a later book (Descent of Man, 1871), Darwin abandoned "natural selecion" as hopeless, and returned to Lamarckism (the scientifically discredited inheritance of acquired charateristics; if you build strong muscles, you son will inherit them).

    I have never found anyone, however religious and devout who did not sometimes experience withdrawal of grace, or feel a lessening of devotion. -Thomas a Kempis

    If You Need Help, Ask God. If You Don't, Thank God. -Unknown


    The devil is a better theologian than any of us and is a devil still. -A.W. Tozer

  • #2
    Two things: First, the theory of evolution has come a long way since Lamarck and Darwin. Second, any truth it reveals cannot disprove the existence of God, Christ of the Truth of the bible.

    Comment


    • #3
      I don't see how the theory of evolution has changed at all. I was taught in school that animals react to the environment and it's called evolution when they change. How is today's evolution different from Larmarckism?
      Also I don't believe there is any truth at all in the theory of evolution. But if there was it probably wouldn't take away from the Bible.
      As far as I can see evolution is a false belief of scientists and they are trying to force kids in school to believe it. No one has ever produced a missing link animal, and the line of the horse ancestry has been proven untrue.

      I have never found anyone, however religious and devout who did not sometimes experience withdrawal of grace, or feel a lessening of devotion. -Thomas a Kempis

      If You Need Help, Ask God. If You Don't, Thank God. -Unknown


      The devil is a better theologian than any of us and is a devil still. -A.W. Tozer

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Beloved by God View Post
        I just bought a new book that has a lot of great information in it. It is called The Evolution Handbook compiled by Vance Ferrell. I know that people often come to this forum asking how they can counter evolutionary arguments. So I thought as I read through this book, if I find something that is short and to the point, I would post it on here and if nothing else it will be an interesting read. The book is basically a lot of facts compiled (about 3,000) that show the origins of Evolution, and all of the gaps and mistakes in it. When I type up these segments I am going to type them exactly the way they are written in this book.

        this exert from Chapter 1 History of Evolutionary Theory

        Jean Baptist Lamarck (1744-1829) made a name for himself by theorizing. He accomplished little else of significance. He laid the foundation of modern evolutionary theory, which is his concept of "inheritance of acquired characteristics," which was later given the name Lamarckism. In 1809, he published a book, Philosophie zoologique, in which he declared that the giraffe got its long neck by stretching it up to reach the higher branches, and that birds that lived in water grew webbed feet. According to that, if you pull hard on your feet you will gradually increase thier length; and, if you decide in your mind to do so you can grow hair on your bald head, and your offspring will never be bald. Is this science?

        August Friedrich Leopold Weismann (1834-1914) was a German biologist who disproved Lamarck's notion of "the inheritance of acquired characteristics." He is primarily remembered as the scientist who cut the tails off of 901 young white mice in 19 successive generations, yet each new generations was born with a full length tail. Te final generation, he reported, had tails as long as those originally measured on the first. Weismann also carried out other experiments that buttressed his refutation of Lamarckism. His discoveries, along with the fact that circumcision of Jewish males for 4,000 years had not affected the foreskin, doomed the theory (Jean Rostand, Orion book of Evolution, 1960, p. 64). Yet Lamarckism continues today as the disguised basic of evolutionary biology. For example, evolutionists still teach that giraffes kept stretching thier necks to reach higher branches, so thier necks became longer! In a later book, Darwin abandoned natural selection as unworkable, and returned to Lamarckism as the cause of never-observed change from one species to another (Randall Hedtke, The Secret of the Sixth Edition, 1984).

        (1940s) Darwin originally wrote that random activity naturally selects itself into improvements.
        In a later book (Descent of Man, 1871), Darwin abandoned "natural selecion" as hopeless, and returned to Lamarckism (the scientifically discredited inheritance of acquired charateristics; if you build strong muscles, you son will inherit them).
        Ok, first, Lamarckism does not continue today. It is a lie to say that most scientists would tell you that giraffes stretched their necks and that's why they're longer. Evolutionary theory today is much closer to Darwin's natural selection and would explain a giraffe having a longer neck because over many, many generations, there would be born a few giraffes whose necks were slightly longer. This would allow them to be able to reach higher leaves and survive better, and thus they would likely have more offspring, and it was more likely for their kids to have the slightly longer neck, until we get to their necks of today.

        As for Darwin denouncing natural selection, I've never heard of that, but I don't have time to research it right now. If someone else would like to, you can read his manuscript (Descent of Man) here. Even if Darwin did decide to support Lamarckism later in his life, that doesn't matter, because natural selection is much closer to evolutionary theory today.

        Comment


        • #5
          Well I am only 65 pages into this 900 page book so I will have to get back to you. I know that everything in this book is cited and researched by scientists and if you are interested in the information there is apparently a website for this book.
          evolution-facts.com I have not went there yet but will sometime soon.
          I do know that some scientists in his age, and now, have denounced evolution after years of study and working with fossils and DNA.

          I have never found anyone, however religious and devout who did not sometimes experience withdrawal of grace, or feel a lessening of devotion. -Thomas a Kempis

          If You Need Help, Ask God. If You Don't, Thank God. -Unknown


          The devil is a better theologian than any of us and is a devil still. -A.W. Tozer

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Beloved by God View Post
            Well I am only 65 pages into this 900 page book so I will have to get back to you. I know that everything in this book is cited and researched by scientists and if you are interested in the information there is apparently a website for this book.
            evolution-facts.com I have not went there yet but will sometime soon. I will have to check that out sometime when I have more time, but you could find just as thick of a book supporting evolution that would have everything researched and cited by scientists.

            I do know that some scientists in his age, and now, have denounced evolution after years of study and working with fossils and DNA.
            Some have, yes, but the majority don't. The other day someone posted the results of a poll by that company that always does polls in the U.S. and that is seen as pretty accurate (sorry, I'm blanking on the name right now) and I think it was 99% of scientists support evolution and believe it to be correct.

            Comment

            Working...
            X