Phenotypic plasticity disproves evolution

[supersport]

I think the phenomenon called phenotypic plasticity disproves evolution. Plasticity, I say, is one of the little-known things that occur in nature that could make it LOOK like things evolved. This is simply an individual animal's ability to change as the environment changes. I submit that every animal on earth has a degree of plasticity. In fact, many animals can change colors, sizes, shapes and even behaviors based on environment. There is a degree of how fast this can happen, and there are varying degrees of this throughout the animal kingdom.

I also submit that every creature on earth is a product of their internal and external environments. In fact, these environments are in active communication at all times. For example, when a snail is in the presence of a predator, he is able to grow a thicker shell in an attempt to protect himself. When individual fish change environments they are often able to change colors. They can also change sizes. Lizards are the same way. They can even shrink. Many mammals are able to quickly change their coat/fur color upon a change in environment. Also phenotypes are helped shaped by one's diet. Beaks, bills, teeth, jaws and more are quickly adaptive to the food one eats. -- I have tons of links but I cannot post them yet due to board rules

To me this is simple disproof of neo-darwinism because the necessary information must already reside the genome to decipher external conditions. I would like an evolutionist to tell me how this is incorrect.....and how else could an animal adapt to a variety of different environments if this built-in potential for variation did not already reside in the genome?

Also if each individual animal is quickly adaptive, then why should it have to wait thousands of years for darwin's version of adaptation to kick in? And the fact is, evolutionists do not have a biolgical mechanism for plasticity....thus they tend to ignore its significance. But I submit that plasticity alone could account for a large percentage of the so-called "evolution" that's observed in the fossil record. S

p.s...It's nice to find this form

 

[Jase]

p.s...It's nice to find this form

Just hope you don't act like you did on IIDB, or the result may be the same

 

[supersport]

lol...the creationist who had the power to bring down the theory that has dominated science for the past 100 years was quickly dismissed for no reason on that site. I'm surprised I lasted a week...I had those members in sheer panic after 2 days. -- I notice you are not debating me

 

[Jase]

lol...the creationist who had the power to bring down the theory that has dominated science for the past 100 years was quickly dismissed for no reason on that site. I'm surprised I lasted a week...I had those members in sheer panic after 2 days.

No you didn't. You had the members in sheer annoyance by violating all their board rules. Don't pat yourself on the back too much, you might pull a muscle.

 

[David Gould]

I am unclear how the ability of animals to respond to their environment is evidence against evolution.

I may be in error, but you seem to be claiming that individual animals can alter during their life times. This is true: I have gotten taller, and now am getting fatter. I am uncertain how this damages evolution at all - especially since it is so obvious that it may just have been noticed by the odd evolutionary biologist out there (you never know - some of them may walk around with their eyes open. )

 

[supersport]

No you didn't. You had the members in sheer annoyance by violating all their board rules. Don't pat yourself on the back too much, you might pull a muscle.

Well let's see how it goes here. I'll try not to break any rules in the process of completely dismantling your theory.

 

[supersport]

I am unclear how the ability of animals to respond to their environment is evidence against evolution.

I may be in error, but you seem to be claiming that individual animals can alter during their life times. This is true: I have gotten taller, and now am getting fatter. I am uncertain how this damages evolution at all - especially since it is so obvious that it may just have been noticed by the odd evolutionary biologist out there (you never know - some of them may walk around with their eyes open. )

Well the fact is many animals have the ability to change phenotypes based on location or by what they eat. Here is a quote...I cannot post a link yet. This shows how developing tadpoles morph into physiologically different creatures based on their diets. I submit that this happens all over the globe.

Biologists have long known that closely related species are often phenotypically different where they occur together, but are indistinguishable where they occur alone. The causes of such character displacement are controversial, however. We used polyphenic spadefoot toad tadpoles (Spea bombifrons and S. multiplicata) to test the hypothesis that character displacement evolves to minimize competition for food. We also sought to evaluate the role of phenotypic plasticity in the mediation of competitive interactions between these species. Depending on their diet, individuals of both species develop into either a small-headed omnivore morph, which feeds mostly on detritus, or a large-headed carnivore morph, which specializes on shrimp.

Darwin's theory does not allow for this. To them, a specific trait is related to a specific gene. And thus, mutations must be built up over time to establish different traits. but that's not what happened here. And that's not what happens everywhere else either. S

 

[David Gould]

Well the fact is many animals have the ability to change phenotypes based on location or by what they eat. Here is a quote...I cannot post a link yet. This shows how developing tadpoles morph into physiologically different creatures based on their diets. I submit that this happens all over the globe.

Biologists have long known that closely related species are often phenotypically different where they occur together, but are indistinguishable where they occur alone. The causes of such character displacement are controversial, however. We used polyphenic spadefoot toad tadpoles (Spea bombifrons and S. multiplicata) to test the hypothesis that character displacement evolves to minimize competition for food. We also sought to evaluate the role of phenotypic plasticity in the mediation of competitive interactions between these species. Depending on their diet, individuals of both species develop into either a small-headed omnivore morph, which feeds mostly on detritus, or a large-headed carnivore morph, which specializes on shrimp.

Darwin's theory does not allow for this. To them, a specific trait is related to a specific gene. And thus, mutations must be built up over time to establish different traits. but that's not what happened here. And that's not what happens everywhere else either. S

I will focus on this:

"A specific trait is related to a specific gene."

This is not true. It has been known for some time that the same gene can code for multiple traits, and which trait is 'switched on' so to speak depends on the environment.

For example, babies growing in the womb follow a specific pattern of development ... provided everything goes well. If the mother is deprived of certain nutrients, for example, developmental processes - which rely on genes and the environment of the womb interacting in certain ways - can be altered.

It is believed that left-handedness is the result of a developmental aberration, for example.


(It is also the case that certain traits rely on multiple genes. If one gene of a set of genes is absent, the trait will not exist.)

I see nothing in this that challenges anything about Darwin's theory.

Your argument seems to be:

P1.) Individuals in a species are affected by their environment.
P2.) Evolution says that this cannot be the case.
C.) Thus, evolution is false.

The problem here is that P2 is false. Evolution does not say that this cannot be the case - indeed, evolution requires it. Natural selection is all about the environment acting on individuals and affecting their development, their reproductive success and their survival.

 

[Manning]

I think the main thing you are overlooking is the amount of plasticity IS affected by genetics. Natural selection is able to select for those individuals which are most plastic and their ability to produce/survive in certain environments.

 

[Gracchus]

The fact that some species exhibit a degree of phenotypic plasticity does not mean all do. Of course if you could by environmental factors alone, change numerous species into others, your point would by demonstrated. Take an example that has been demonstrated, for instance: reptile to bird, and produce the effect by environmental changes.

Better yet, change a bird back to a reptile.

Publish your methods and results and pick up your Nobel Prize.

 

[supersport]

I will focus on this:

"A specific trait is related to a specific gene."

This is not true. It has been known for some time that the same gene can code for multiple traits, and which trait is 'switched on' so to speak depends on the environment.

For example, babies growing in the womb follow a specific pattern of development ... provided everything goes well. If the mother is deprived of certain nutrients, for example, developmental processes - which rely on genes and the environment of the womb interacting in certain ways - can be altered.

It is believed that left-handedness is the result of a developmental aberration, for example.


(It is also the case that certain traits rely on multiple genes. If one gene of a set of genes is absent, the trait will not exist.)

I see nothing in this that challenges anything about Darwin's theory.

Your argument seems to be:

P1.) Individuals in a species are affected by their environment.
P2.) Evolution says that this cannot be the case.
C.) Thus, evolution is false.

The problem here is that P2 is false. Evolution does not say that this cannot be the case - indeed, evolution requires it. Natural selection is all about the environment acting on individuals and affecting their development, their reproductive success and their survival.

The problem is, according to your theory, the environment cannot cause or direct a mutation. And mutations, as far as I know, are the only bonified way that animal can change. Not only that, but the basic dogma of neo-darwinism is that POPULATIONS evolve, not individuals. This is a fact. They simply do not acknowledge that individual animals can be adaptive because there is no biological mechanism to do so.

As far as your comment about one gene effecting one trait...I believe you are in error. The fact is, evolutionists don't like to admit this now because it makes them look a bit silly. But the fact is, this used to be common thinking. Take a look at this quote...which is from a review of a book regarding phenotypic plasticity: (can be found at Amazon.com)


This thesis challenges the modern gene-centered view of evolution, and in so doing, drives the final nail in the coffin of the "one-gene-one-phenotype" illusion. The book encourages the view that a unified science of evolution can only be achieved with a thorough integration of development into evolutionary biology. To this end, Mary Jane West-Eberhard's treatise is an enormous success. By showing how environmentally influenced development contributes to the origin of novelty in all organisms, the book provides a key missing component of a modern evolutionary theory that biology has been lacking since Darwin. The book is essential reading for all graduate students, researchers and teachers of biology.

In otherwords....evolutionists better change their story -- and quick -- because the fact is it has gaping holes in it.

 

[supersport]

The fact that some species exhibit a degree of phenotypic plasticity does not mean all do. Of course if you could by environmental factors alone, change numerous species into others, your point would by demonstrated. Take an example that has been demonstrated, for instance: reptile to bird, and produce the effect by environmental changes.

Better yet, change a bird back to a reptile.

Publish your methods and results and pick up your Nobel Prize.

Ok...would you like to tell me which animals do not have plasticity? I say they all do. And I have links to back myself up. Now of course, plasticity is a vastly under-studied, under-ackowledged phenomenon so it takes some digging to find examples. But I have done so. The fact is birds, reptiles, bugs mammals and fish are all plastic to one degree or another. Size seems to have a lot to do with how quickly one can adjust. ( I do not believe that a bird can turn into a reptile -- that's the evolutonists' game, not mine.) S

 

[jdholding]

well, the main problem with your arguement is that you have no arguement. basically what you've done is taken widely accepted facts and presented them as the inside dirt that we evolutionary biologist don't want you to know. you would be hard pressed to find a "neo-darwinist" who will disagree that organisms change with respect to their environment. It's important to note that these phenotypicchanges are not caused by genotypicchanges. no one is suggesting that. true, the phenotype changes, but the genotype stays the same. All that is changed is the level of expression of certain genes. that's what plasticity is. a very elegant concept (created by an evolutionary biologist!!) that helps us understand natural selection. not disprove it.

 

[supersport]

well, the main problem with your arguement is that you have no arguement. basically what you've done is taken widely accepted facts and presented them as the inside dirt that we evolutionary biologist don't want you to know. you would be hard pressed to find a "neo-darwinist" who will disagree that organisms change with respect to their environment. It's important to note that these phenotypicchanges are not caused by genotypicchanges. no one is suggesting that. true, the phenotype changes, but the genotype stays the same. All that is changed is the level of expression of certain genes. that's what plasticity is. a very elegant concept (created by an evolutionary biologist!!) that helps us understand natural selection. not disprove it.

Ok then....since you say that evolutionsts are so happy and accepting of this phenomenon....and you agree that animals can quickly change size, shape, and color, then can you show me a link where scientists have attributed fossils to simple plasticity? The fact is -- plasticity is the enemy. It's fancy word for individual adaptation -- the one thing darwin was tying to get around in the Origin of Species. And the fact is you cannot show me any darwin website that will tell me how plasticity works into their theory because, like I say, according to them POPULATIONS evolve, not individuals. Prove me wrong with a link that says otherwise. S

 

[sfs]

Well the fact is many animals have the ability to change phenotypes based on location or by what they eat. [...]Darwin's theory does not allow for this. To them, a specific trait is related to a specific gene. And thus, mutations must be built up over time to establish different traits. but that's not what happened here. And that's not what happens everywhere else either. S

Where did you get the idea that Darwin's theory doesn't allow for this? From the fifth chapter of The Origin of Species: "When a variation is of the slightest use to any being, we cannot tell how much to attribute to the accumulative action of natural selection, and how much to the definite action of the conditions of life. Thus, it is well known to furriers that animals of the same species have thicker and better fur the further north they live; but who can tell how much of this difference may be due to the warmest-clad individuals having been favoured and preserved during many generations, and how much to the action of the severe climate? for it would appear that climate has some direct action on the hair of our domestic quadrupeds." And later in the same chapter: "How much of the acclimatisation of species to any peculiar climate is due to mere habit, and how much to the natural selection of varieties having different innate constitutions, and how much to both means combined, is an obscure question. That habit or custom has some influence, I must believe, both from analogy and from the incessant advice given in agricultural works. . . to be very cautious in transporting animals from one district to another."

In other words, Darwin was well aware of plasticity and explicitly addressed it when laying out his theory.

 

[supersport]

Where did you get the idea that Darwin's theory doesn't allow for this? From the fifth chapter of The Origin of Species: "When a variation is of the slightest use to any being, we cannot tell how much to attribute to the accumulative action of natural selection, and how much to the definite action of the conditions of life. Thus, it is well known to furriers that animals of the same species have thicker and better fur the further north they live; but who can tell how much of this difference may be due to the warmest-clad individuals having been favoured and preserved during many generations, and how much to the action of the severe climate? for it would appear that climate has some direct action on the hair of our domestic quadrupeds." And later in the same chapter: "How much of the acclimatisation of species to any peculiar climate is due to mere habit, and how much to the natural selection of varieties having different innate constitutions, and how much to both means combined, is an obscure question. That habit or custom has some influence, I must believe, both from analogy and from the incessant advice given in agricultural works. . . to be very cautious in transporting animals from one district to another."

In other words, Darwin was well aware of plasticity and explicitly addressed it when laying out his theory.

the fact is you have no biological mechanism for change. For example...if a fish is red.....and then upon an enviornmental change, switches its color reddish-yellow, you have no mechanism to explain this. Please show me in darwin's book where this is possible. You can't. And the fact is evolutionists HAVE to admit to plasticity...but they're talking out of both sides of their mouth because they also claim that only populations evolve. S

 

[supersport]

The truth is evolutionary theory is in big trouble. In fact it's imploding because there are splinter groups that are bucking the long-standing version that has dominated science. And the reason there are splinter groups is because of this very reason: darwinism cannot explain quick variations of animals -- and it's about to bite them if they don't hurry up and cover up the obvious gaping hole that I'm about to exploit.

The fact is every individual animal on earth is adaptive to a wide range of environments, and this is the one thing evoutionists cannot stand the idea of because organisms would have to have intelligence in the genome to decipher external conditions. It's that simple. S

 

[Manning]

For example...if a fish is red.....and then upon an enviornmental change, switches its color reddish-yellow

I think it would be better to use concrete examples instead of theoretical possibilities. An example: human skill color is a very plastic trait. However not all humans have equal ability to change their skin color in order to adapt to their environment. Some people burn easier, some people tan easier, some people tan very rarely. Now, the actual tanning is caused by the environment, however the ABILITY to change is caused by genetics and skin type.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

Just hope you don't act like you did on IIDB, or the result may be the same

Or you can preview the same on Evolution Fairytale.

here is the final post from a few days ago.

This thread ha gotten a little out of hand. I'm closing for further review.

Terry

But I suppose we can go through this debunking of neo-Lamarckian Lysenkoism again.

BTW sport, can you tell us how your theory is different from Lamarck's or Lysenko's?

 

[nvxplorer]

the fact is you have no biological mechanism for change. For example...if a fish is red.....and then upon an enviornmental change, switches its color reddish-yellow, you have no mechanism to explain this. Please show me in darwin's book where this is possible. You can't. And the fact is evolutionists HAVE to admit to plasticity...but they're talking out of both sides of their mouth because they also claim that only populations evolve. S

Uh...populations evolve the ability to change their appearance. All members of certain octupus species can morph to match their surroundings, not just certain individuals. Your argument doesn't make any sense.