This is one of the strangest discoveries in which I deem is fraud in evolutionary science. Science Daily reports the following…
“To determine if hind-leg length influences the success of the twitching and running lizards in getting away from the ants, Langkilde measured the hind-leg lengths of all of the lizards. She found that, indeed, the lizards with the longest hind legs were the most successful at getting away from ants.
“She also discovered that lizard leg length appears to be inherited from an individual’s parents. Langkilde concluded that the lizards living near fire ants are developing behaviors to increase their survival and are evolving longer hind legs in response to attacks by fire ants.”
Acquired characteristics mentioned in this article has been proved wrong. Now early on in this proposal which was first known as “Lamarkiamism” or the law of use and disuse was commonly believed by intellectuals for thousands of years. I believe it wasn’t evolutionary fraud during those years, but a lack of understanding of inheritance of traits.
The concept of acquired characteristics was the idea of an advantageous trait would be passed on to the next generation. For example, Darwin believed if a horse was exercised so it would developed large muscles, it’s offspring would have those large muscles too.
This is exactly what is being implied in the science daily article. I thought this hypothesis was long dead. I first encountered the concept by watching National Geographic when I was a small child.
One has to shake his or her head at science daily. A Lizard grows longer back legs and then passes on to the next generation in order to adapt to the fire ants attacks. Yikes! We are aware changes happen to the body there is no question about this, but there is no physical link between experience and the DNA in the reproductive cells. No wireless connection either where experience sends signals to the reproductive cells thereby altering the cell.
What is passed on to the next generation are only the genes. Just seven years after Darwin died August Weiman’s tail cutting experiment put an end to the law of disuse. He cut off 20 generations of tails of mice in which he thought the generations after that would born without tails. It didn’t happen, thus the law of disuse was proved to be wrong. It was a long time after the experiment did the hypothesis lost favor with the majority of evolutionary scientists.
Most scientists today in evolution believe mutations are the mechanism that creates new information which is advantageous and is guided by natural selection. Not by experience. More on the science daily article…
“Langkilde intends to investigate whether adult lizards can learn to twitch and run away from ants and whether babies that are born with the ability to survive ant attacks can lose this ability if they do not use it.”
A Lizard changing it’s behavior towards a new enemy has nothing to do with the law of use or disuse as we seen previously, it’s been proved to be wrong. Nor does it prove evolution is right.
Even a localized experiment like a house pet. Take a bird which can learn how to play with new toys, but you take one of the toys that was in the cage a long time and requires some skill like climbing on it a certain way. Then replace it with a similar toy, but with some slight difference. One observes the bird looking awkward in trying to play with it, but eventually looks comfortable again.
And then repeat the experiment by switching the same toys after a long period of time, and the same result will occur. It’s off spring wouldn’t be born with the ability as though it would automatically know because of it’s gene pool, it would first have to learn how to play with the toy. Is this proof of evolution? Answer: No!
In conclusion, I believe the Lizard story in science daily is misleading. Studying how Lizards behave is not research fraud even though one disagrees with it’s faulty conclusion of evolution. However, in these times unlike the distant past, claiming acquired characteristics through experience is simply research fraud.