IanBrown_101
Posts: 927
Joined: April 2007
|
| Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,23:39) | | Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 18 2007,17:24) | | Quote (supersport @ Sep. 18 2007,16:37) | | prove it...I need to see where it was lamarckism was proven wrong. |
Actually, it didn't need to be proven wrong, because it never was a scientific theory. Lamark produced blind assertions and never submitted them to experiments.
So it's up to you. Show us those acquired traits being inherited? Bronzed skin? Scars? Fractures? Hair cut? Will your children be more muscular if you practice body-building? |
Well who said this?
"You seem to support Lamarkism. Too bad it's been proven wrong long ago"
Why is it up to ME to prove or disprove Lamarckism -- don't you think 100 years of science should have accomplished something like this by now? The purposeful generation/heritability of traits is EASY to test. Don't blame me for science being full of a bunch of chickens. |
I don't know if anyone has bothered to respond to this, but Weismann cut the tails off several generations of mice in order to test inheritable acquired traits. It didn't work.
Link.
--------------
I'm not the fastest or the baddest or the fatest.
You NEVER seem to address the fact that the grand majority of people supporting Darwinism in these on line forums and blogs are atheists. That doesn't seem to bother you guys in the least. - FtK
Roddenberry is my God.
|
