Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9073 total)
75 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Phat, Tangle (5 members, 70 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,319 Year: 4,431/6,534 Month: 645/900 Week: 169/182 Day: 2/47 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   About New Lamarckian Synthesis Theory
dayalanand roy
Junior Member (Idle past 2823 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 11-27-2012


Message 244 of 264 (682590)
12-04-2012 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by zi ko
09-28-2012 9:22 AM


A fresh look at Lamarckism is needed
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by zi ko, posted 09-28-2012 9:22 AM zi ko has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2012 1:53 AM dayalanand roy has replied
 Message 247 by Dr Jack, posted 12-04-2012 12:30 PM dayalanand roy has taken no action
 Message 248 by Taq, posted 12-04-2012 12:44 PM dayalanand roy has seen this message

  
dayalanand roy
Junior Member (Idle past 2823 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 11-27-2012


Message 257 of 264 (683647)
12-12-2012 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by RAZD
12-04-2012 1:53 AM


Re: science versus opinions
I am extremely grateful to you for following my all posts, even if you don't find anything noticeable in them. I am further grateful to you for pointing out my problem. I would love to keep in touch with you.
deepest regards.
dayala

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2012 1:53 AM RAZD has seen this message

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022