Really, I sincerely feel that Lamarck was not given his due credit though I have all regards for Darwin's theory. Darwin's propositions are almost flawless, but not complete. And nay, Lamark was a victim of some some misunderstanding too. Weisman's experiment on rats in which he chopped of their tails for many generations and showed that he never got tailless offsprings was a gross misunderstanding of Lamark's 'acquired characters'. It was not an acquired character but rather a 'thrust upon' character. I also have great expectations from data coming out from Epigenetic research.
When I consider the erect posture of humans, my conscience refuses to accept that it was simply due to some mutations followed by natural selection, and the efforts of humans themselves had nothing to do. I wonder if this was the case, why not mutation causes any other single member of another species to acqiure an erect posture, even if it is not selected by nature.
Plants are provided with a great gift of nature, chloroplast that enables it to synthesise its own food. Animals were deprived of this gift. But this handicap led them to search for their food themselves and, in turn, they developed a marvellous property, their nervous system. Why did not a single plant dsevelop this property? Because, I think, they did not need it. Why did random mutation did not create a nervous system in even a single plant? This example suggests that we must give a fresh look on guided mutation, or guided evolution on which most scinetists frown upon. But I humbly plead that my view of guided mutation or guided evolution does not involve a 'supernatural hand', rather a very natural hand, which we may have yet to discover. I am posting my views on this guided mutation in a separate thread,' what is missing in the the theory of evolution.
regardss
Dayalanand
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add blank lines.
™ Version 4.2