Evolutionists believe that in order for an animal to change biologically they must go through the selection process. They do not admit that the organism is able to “make itself” change...they do not believe animals can respond to their environment because this would imply that randomness is not in control of evolution….it would also imply that natural processes are intelligible. So, instead, evolutionists insist that biological changes must arise randomly through the population. They believe that all organisms are simply the result of millions of years of blind accidental mutations frozen by accidental success. And this is a process that, of course, that has no intelligence.
Not only that but darwinists believe that it’s the genes that are in control….everything in life must ultimately be explained by genetics.
But it’s now known that it’s not necessarily the genes that define the phenotype of an organism......instead, the ultimate structure of an organism is determined by hidden “fields.” Here’s a couple quotes from Brian Goodwin (evolutionist) from “How the Leopard Changed it’s spots:”
What organsims inherit is not simply genes, but a complex organization called the living state that is capable of generating (reproduction) and regeneration because of intrinsic properties ascribed…to field behavior…What is reproduced in each generation is an entitiy with a potential set of forms out of which emerges a specific morphology as a result of external and internal particulars, among which are included are genes.
The molecular composition of something is not, in general, sufficient to determine its form.
The morphology of organisms cannot be explained by the action of their genes.
Biologists now know that individual animals in a population are able to develop specific traits while still in the egg or womb. I believe this is when REAL evolution happens. It’s when the living body builds and constructs itself according to cues from external environment. This is when the mind and body come together….it’s when the phenotype can be molded and manipulated. And if the external environmental cues sticks around long enough, these manipulations can be inherited by future offspring. I've shown this to be true with guppies, mice, lizards, Cichlids, tadpoles, moths, butterflies and salamanders. They all have shown the ability to emerge with different physiological traits based on internal/external conditions....regardless of what their parent's genetic triaits were.
And like I just said, these traits can be heritable to future generations. Here’s a quote from Lee Spetner from “Not By Chance.”
The most outstanding examples of heritable genetic states are the changes in the genetic program that occur during development of an embryo. During development, genes get turned On and Off as the cells divide. The On/Off state is passed from mother to daughter cell as the cells differentiate…..
….A genetic switch with a locking trigger is heritable. A cue from the environment cn trigger the switch, turning a gene On or Off. The On/Off state of the gene will maintain itself even through cell division. The genes of the daughter cells will have the same state as the mother cell. The heritability will maintain itself indefinately through any number of generations. A new trigger from another environmental cue can reset the gene.
So I believe that individual animals were created with the ability to find rapid solutions to problems encountered in the environment.
Along with the ability of animals to develop traits in the womb/egg, they also have the ability to develop traits after entering the world. “Plasticity,” is simply the term that describes an individual animal’s ability to change: Lizards can grow longer legs, rabbits and foxes and many other mammals can change fur color, fish can change shapes and sizes, tadpoles can emerge later from the egg, hermit crabs can grow into bigger shells, snails can morph their size in the presence of a predator, moths can change their wing patterns, snakes can alter their jaw morphology, etc etc etc. And plasticity does not happen randomly. In fact, the changes are not arbitrary at all. This undermines one of the basic tenants of neodarwinism.
Ultimately, though, plasticity is just code word for the adaptive abilities of the genome....This, of course, is not evolution -- but the important thing to remember is it's something that can give the illusion of evoluiton in the field. What may look like the evolution of moths via RM + NS may actually be a simple morphological phenomenon within the individual. What may LOOK like evolution of a population is nothing more than a phenotypic change of individuals throghout the population from the same environmental cue.
And this goes without saying that evolutionists cannot explain plasticity without invoking intelligence. This is why you will not find a conversation about it in any evolutionist’s book. It’s avoided like The Black Plague. About all you’ll get out of an evolutionist is a weak handwaving comment that plasticity is simply a “chemical reaction.”
But if a fish has the ability to change colors, shapes, sizes, hatching times, feeding habits, mating habits or other traits "on-the-fly", then there is no justification in an evolutionist saying that it’s just a “chemical reaction,” “reaction of the norm,” or anything else that would turn a blind eye to obvious fact that there’s a hidden intelligence within each animal that’s able to determine exactly what is needed for survival at any given time.
But it gets worse for evolutinists -- here’s another big problem: Evolutionists believe that it's selection that forms traits....they believe that animals must wait on the right random mutation to occur just when it is needed in order to evolve successfully. (These occur no less than one time per million individuals – as per TalkOrigins.) Evolutionits also say that selection works off these randomly mutating genes which are supposedly more "fit." But if more “fit” traits are not provided by random genetic mutations -- or any mutations -- then there is nothing genetically for selection to work off of…thus…there is no way an animal can be built up without more “fit” traits being linked to individually mutating genes.
And that's the problem with evo devo -- they've replaced the concept that random mutations form traits with the concept that traits are formed during development. This completely dismantles Neo-Darwinists version of evolution.
Check out this quote from Michael Ruse:
"The most dramatic discoveries in evo-devo have been quite unexpected DNA homologies. It turns out that organisms as different as fruit flies and humans share considerable amounts of practically unaltered DNA, especially those stretches that are involved in development itself--ordering the rates and ways in which the parts of the body are formed (heads before legs and so forth). The jury is still out on the precise significance of all of this. Some seem to think that selection will now have to take a back seat in evolution: "The homologies of process within morphogenetic fields provide some of the best evidence for evolution just as skeletal and organ homologies did earlier. Thus, the evidence for evolution is better than ever. The role of natural selection in evolution, however, is seen to play less an important role. It is merely a filter for unsuccessful morphologies generated by development. Population genetics is destined to change if it is not to become as irrelevant to evolution as Newtonian mechanics is to contemporary physics."[4]
Check out this quote from Gould who called this one many years ago:
In a sense, the specter of directed variability threatens Darwinism even more seriously than any putative failure of the other two postulates. Insufficient variation stalls natural selection; saltation deprives selection of a creative role but still calls upon Darwin’s mechanism as a negative force. With directed variation, however, natural selection can be bypassed entirely. If adaptive pressures automatically trigger heritable variation in favored directions, then trends can proceed under regimes of random mortality; natural selection, acting as a negative force, can, at most, accelerate the change.
another Gould quote:
"Selection becomes creative only if it can impart direction to evolution by superintending the slow and steady accumulation of favored subsets from an isotropic pool of variation. If gradualism does not accompany this process of change, selection must relinquish this creative role and Darwinism then fails as a creative source of evolutionary novelty. If important new features, or entire new taxa, arise as large and discontinuous variations, then creativity lies in the production of the variation itself. Natural selection no longer causes evolution"
Thus, if all organisms in a population have the capacity to be biologically flexible through plasticity -- or traits formed nonrandomly during development -- then they are all equally able to evolve and thus they are all equally fit because they will all develop the same traits at the same time. There will still be competition if more animals are born that can survive in a particular environment, but survival becomes more of a lottery among equals. This dispells the notion that selection is a non-random phenomenon....which completely destroys Toe. There is no way around it.
And this can be verified by observing nature. Look at crickets – they all the same. Look at grub worms – they all look the same. Look at roaches and mice and lizards and frogs and rabbits and sparrows and flamingoes and armadillos and humans. They’re all basically the SAME as the next….and 98% of them are able to breed! Evolutionists’ suggestion that natural selection is a non-random phenomenon on an individual level is ridiculous. Everything was created to reproduce.
Ultimately I believe science has replaced the living, breathing, intelligent organism with blind and stupid randomly mutating genes. They have sunk so low that they must ignore the reality of life that is the miraculous God-given mind – the organ that defines life – and instead put all their concentration on molecular reductionism – which basically does away with real life. Organisms are nothing but vehicles for genes.
And this is why evolutionists are scared to test animals in different environments to see how they might react phenotypically. They shake like leaves in the wind at the notion that animals are individually adaptive and can develop new traits without selection. Most evolutionist scientists refuse to explore and document animals’ God-given creative potential because they are afraid of what the outcomes would be. S
Not only that but darwinists believe that it’s the genes that are in control….everything in life must ultimately be explained by genetics.
But it’s now known that it’s not necessarily the genes that define the phenotype of an organism......instead, the ultimate structure of an organism is determined by hidden “fields.” Here’s a couple quotes from Brian Goodwin (evolutionist) from “How the Leopard Changed it’s spots:”
What organsims inherit is not simply genes, but a complex organization called the living state that is capable of generating (reproduction) and regeneration because of intrinsic properties ascribed…to field behavior…What is reproduced in each generation is an entitiy with a potential set of forms out of which emerges a specific morphology as a result of external and internal particulars, among which are included are genes.
The molecular composition of something is not, in general, sufficient to determine its form.
The morphology of organisms cannot be explained by the action of their genes.
Biologists now know that individual animals in a population are able to develop specific traits while still in the egg or womb. I believe this is when REAL evolution happens. It’s when the living body builds and constructs itself according to cues from external environment. This is when the mind and body come together….it’s when the phenotype can be molded and manipulated. And if the external environmental cues sticks around long enough, these manipulations can be inherited by future offspring. I've shown this to be true with guppies, mice, lizards, Cichlids, tadpoles, moths, butterflies and salamanders. They all have shown the ability to emerge with different physiological traits based on internal/external conditions....regardless of what their parent's genetic triaits were.
And like I just said, these traits can be heritable to future generations. Here’s a quote from Lee Spetner from “Not By Chance.”
The most outstanding examples of heritable genetic states are the changes in the genetic program that occur during development of an embryo. During development, genes get turned On and Off as the cells divide. The On/Off state is passed from mother to daughter cell as the cells differentiate…..
….A genetic switch with a locking trigger is heritable. A cue from the environment cn trigger the switch, turning a gene On or Off. The On/Off state of the gene will maintain itself even through cell division. The genes of the daughter cells will have the same state as the mother cell. The heritability will maintain itself indefinately through any number of generations. A new trigger from another environmental cue can reset the gene.
So I believe that individual animals were created with the ability to find rapid solutions to problems encountered in the environment.
Along with the ability of animals to develop traits in the womb/egg, they also have the ability to develop traits after entering the world. “Plasticity,” is simply the term that describes an individual animal’s ability to change: Lizards can grow longer legs, rabbits and foxes and many other mammals can change fur color, fish can change shapes and sizes, tadpoles can emerge later from the egg, hermit crabs can grow into bigger shells, snails can morph their size in the presence of a predator, moths can change their wing patterns, snakes can alter their jaw morphology, etc etc etc. And plasticity does not happen randomly. In fact, the changes are not arbitrary at all. This undermines one of the basic tenants of neodarwinism.
Ultimately, though, plasticity is just code word for the adaptive abilities of the genome....This, of course, is not evolution -- but the important thing to remember is it's something that can give the illusion of evoluiton in the field. What may look like the evolution of moths via RM + NS may actually be a simple morphological phenomenon within the individual. What may LOOK like evolution of a population is nothing more than a phenotypic change of individuals throghout the population from the same environmental cue.
And this goes without saying that evolutionists cannot explain plasticity without invoking intelligence. This is why you will not find a conversation about it in any evolutionist’s book. It’s avoided like The Black Plague. About all you’ll get out of an evolutionist is a weak handwaving comment that plasticity is simply a “chemical reaction.”
But if a fish has the ability to change colors, shapes, sizes, hatching times, feeding habits, mating habits or other traits "on-the-fly", then there is no justification in an evolutionist saying that it’s just a “chemical reaction,” “reaction of the norm,” or anything else that would turn a blind eye to obvious fact that there’s a hidden intelligence within each animal that’s able to determine exactly what is needed for survival at any given time.
But it gets worse for evolutinists -- here’s another big problem: Evolutionists believe that it's selection that forms traits....they believe that animals must wait on the right random mutation to occur just when it is needed in order to evolve successfully. (These occur no less than one time per million individuals – as per TalkOrigins.) Evolutionits also say that selection works off these randomly mutating genes which are supposedly more "fit." But if more “fit” traits are not provided by random genetic mutations -- or any mutations -- then there is nothing genetically for selection to work off of…thus…there is no way an animal can be built up without more “fit” traits being linked to individually mutating genes.
And that's the problem with evo devo -- they've replaced the concept that random mutations form traits with the concept that traits are formed during development. This completely dismantles Neo-Darwinists version of evolution.
Check out this quote from Michael Ruse:
"The most dramatic discoveries in evo-devo have been quite unexpected DNA homologies. It turns out that organisms as different as fruit flies and humans share considerable amounts of practically unaltered DNA, especially those stretches that are involved in development itself--ordering the rates and ways in which the parts of the body are formed (heads before legs and so forth). The jury is still out on the precise significance of all of this. Some seem to think that selection will now have to take a back seat in evolution: "The homologies of process within morphogenetic fields provide some of the best evidence for evolution just as skeletal and organ homologies did earlier. Thus, the evidence for evolution is better than ever. The role of natural selection in evolution, however, is seen to play less an important role. It is merely a filter for unsuccessful morphologies generated by development. Population genetics is destined to change if it is not to become as irrelevant to evolution as Newtonian mechanics is to contemporary physics."[4]
Check out this quote from Gould who called this one many years ago:
In a sense, the specter of directed variability threatens Darwinism even more seriously than any putative failure of the other two postulates. Insufficient variation stalls natural selection; saltation deprives selection of a creative role but still calls upon Darwin’s mechanism as a negative force. With directed variation, however, natural selection can be bypassed entirely. If adaptive pressures automatically trigger heritable variation in favored directions, then trends can proceed under regimes of random mortality; natural selection, acting as a negative force, can, at most, accelerate the change.
another Gould quote:
"Selection becomes creative only if it can impart direction to evolution by superintending the slow and steady accumulation of favored subsets from an isotropic pool of variation. If gradualism does not accompany this process of change, selection must relinquish this creative role and Darwinism then fails as a creative source of evolutionary novelty. If important new features, or entire new taxa, arise as large and discontinuous variations, then creativity lies in the production of the variation itself. Natural selection no longer causes evolution"
Thus, if all organisms in a population have the capacity to be biologically flexible through plasticity -- or traits formed nonrandomly during development -- then they are all equally able to evolve and thus they are all equally fit because they will all develop the same traits at the same time. There will still be competition if more animals are born that can survive in a particular environment, but survival becomes more of a lottery among equals. This dispells the notion that selection is a non-random phenomenon....which completely destroys Toe. There is no way around it.
And this can be verified by observing nature. Look at crickets – they all the same. Look at grub worms – they all look the same. Look at roaches and mice and lizards and frogs and rabbits and sparrows and flamingoes and armadillos and humans. They’re all basically the SAME as the next….and 98% of them are able to breed! Evolutionists’ suggestion that natural selection is a non-random phenomenon on an individual level is ridiculous. Everything was created to reproduce.
Ultimately I believe science has replaced the living, breathing, intelligent organism with blind and stupid randomly mutating genes. They have sunk so low that they must ignore the reality of life that is the miraculous God-given mind – the organ that defines life – and instead put all their concentration on molecular reductionism – which basically does away with real life. Organisms are nothing but vehicles for genes.
And this is why evolutionists are scared to test animals in different environments to see how they might react phenotypically. They shake like leaves in the wind at the notion that animals are individually adaptive and can develop new traits without selection. Most evolutionist scientists refuse to explore and document animals’ God-given creative potential because they are afraid of what the outcomes would be. S
