A Lizard’s Body Adapting Through Experience?

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.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “A Lizard’s Body Adapting Through Experience?

  1. “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.”

    “lizards” here indicates a *population* of lizards, not individual lizards. You do not seem to understand natural selection …

    Don’t start shouting ‘fraud !’ straight away, that’s not nice.

  2. “This is exactly what is being implied in the science daily article. I thought this hypothesis was long dead…”

    So utterly wrong. Go back to school. You’ve misinterpreted the entire article. No wonder you believe in all this religious nonsense.

  3. Aussiemandias,

    No, I’m utterly right! Evolutionists believe in for the most part random mutations changing the body in a positive way, not through experience. In the future, the random part might change a bit due to new proposals. Currently, the schools don’t teach a physical connection between experience and the reproductive cells. The mutation aspect of it, they do. And if you think there is some sort of physical connection between experience and the reproductive cells, by all means try and prove it…Instead of going around trying to insult creationists which is taught by the likes of PZ Meyers. Explain what physically connects the two and how experience is able to affect the reproductive cell.

  4. Before you start shouting ‘fraud!’ you really should make at least an attempt to understand what evolution really is all about. You do misinterpret the whole science daily article, and you do not understand how natural selection works.

    Lamarck’s concept of “acquired characteristics” was adopted by Spencer, not Darwin. The latter developed his own theory of inheritance of acquired characters, pangenesis, not much later proven to be wrong. Hey, Darwin was a real scientist! He also had some theories that did not work! But this is not the theory of evolution, of course, and that is also not what the science daily article is saying. It just shows natural selection in action! Interesting research (although a bit cruel, in my opinion!), and hardly strange.

    So: natural selection is the process by which favorable heritable traits become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable heritable traits become less common, due to differential reproduction of genotypes.

    Please notice the word “population”. That is what I’ve been trying to tell you (politely). The science daily was a bit sloppy in saying just ‘lizards’ instead of the ‘population of lizards’. But that is commonly understood.

    For humans we have ‘man’ and ‘men’, so perhaps we should introduce the word ‘lizerd’ ?

    I’ve been trying to remain very polite to you, Michael, which other posters have not managed to do. But such harsh words are solely the result of your own doings. Fraud is a really serious allegation for a scientist, and your claim is completely unwarranted. If you start shouting ‘fraud!’ and then display a lack of knowledge in the basics of evolutionary biology, people get upset. Not very surprising.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s