Palaeonictis
Posts: 13
Joined: April 2016
|
| Quote (N.Wells @ April 19 2016,05:39) | | What they did not do, again unlike you, was to use their model as a launching point for unbridled speculation about things like molecular intelligence, the Cambrian explosion, salmon as spectacular examples of parental care, and so on and so forth. |
How about Komodo dragons as "spectacular examples of parental care", once the eggs hatch a large portion of the hatchlings are eaten by the Komodo adults. Exemplary parenting, indeed!
Intelligence being the cause of the Cambrian explosion?!?! My, the little critters must've been smart enough to change their morphologies and behaviors to match the onslaught of predators, at least, according to Lamarkists. Then again, Lamark proposed a scientific theory, with testable predictions, and a testable explanation for variety which Darwinism at the time lacked (while Mendel discovered genes in 1865, the whole "Mendelian genetics" thing did not pass on 'till around 40 years afterwards with Hugo de Vries). Once Lamarkism was falsified, most Lamarkists drifted towards more plausible theories of evolution, such as a thing called "natural selection", ever hear of it Gary?
How was Lamarkism falsified? It all began with a simple experiment by August Weismann all the way back in 1887, Weismann, a Darwinist (a term that was applicable back then, not so much now), cut the tails off of mice, and every new generation, the mice didn't turn out with cut off tails, just ordinary tails (ordinary, in the sense of mice). When previous die-hard Lamarkists like Cope's prodigies Walter Barryman Scott and Henry Fairfield Osborn heard about this "revolutionary" new insight, they abandoned Lamarkism for something, ahem, called "orthogenesis".
Do you see the difference between "Gaulinism" and "Lamarkism", Lamarkism was actually scientific, with testable predictions, and wasn't a catch all term, once it was falsified, gradually most Lamarkists turned to other theories of evolution (Darwinism didn't really become popular until the Modern Synthesis of the 1930's and 40's). You keep holding on to your deranged ideas, with no testable predictions, even when shown the error of you ways, unlike Lamarkists, you promptly dismiss them as the work of the "Scientific Establishment" trying to discredit your ideas.
--------------
“Why do we electrocute men for murdering an individual and then pin a purple heart on them for mass slaughter of someone arbitrarily labeled “enemy?”
― Sylvia Plath
|
