Lamarckism Still Shuffles Around

first_imgExamine the following quotation and see if it sounds like what Darwin or Lamarck would say: Somewhere in the murky past, between four and seven million years ago, a hungry common ancestor of today’s primates, including humans, did something novel.  While temporarily standing on its rear feet to reach a piece of fruit, this protohominid spotted another juicy morsel in a nearby shrub and began shuffling toward it instead of dropping on all fours, crawling to the shrub and standing again.    A number of reasons have been proposed for the development of bipedal behavior, or walking on two feet, and now researchers from the University of Washington and Johns Hopkins University have developed a mathematical model that suggests shuffling emerged as a precursor to walking as a way of saving metabolic energy.This is how Science Daily began a story about the evolution of human upright posture.  No attempt was made to tie the behavior to random mutations or to explain how natural selection acted on them.  It sounds like Lamarck’s old hypothesis of the inheritance of acquired characteristics through use and disuse – a discredited idea according to most contemporary Darwinists.  Nor was an explanation offered, if the new stance was so effective, why modern apes still stoop around most of the time on all fours.    Lest Science Daily be accused of misunderstanding evolutionary theory, quotations in the article tie the Lamarckism to the researchers themselves.  Patrick Kramer, an anthropologist at University of Washington, said, “There is nothing that will get you to do something you don’t want to do other than food.  That’s why we bribe animals with food to train them.”  Yet after centuries of bribing animals with food to stand upright, no elephant, horse or ape has acquired upright stance by either Lamarck’s or Darwin’s mechanism.    The researchers studied metabolic efficiency of standing, knuckle-walking and shuffling, but such measurements are about living animals.  They have no necessary connection to the evolutionary theory that made Darwin famous: natural selection acting on random variations.If a creationist were to make this kind of blunder, or tell this kind of just-so story, he or she would be condemned as an ignoramus.  Yet evolutionists get away with violating their own theoretical principles time and again and are only rarely called on the carpet for it (05/31/2004).  Why?  Because in support of their worldview (naturalism), facts don’t matter (see Fairfax’s Law in the Baloney Detector).  All’s fair in love for Darwin and war against creationism.  That’s why Darwin himself slipped back toward Lamarckism in his later years when stubborn facts hampered his ability to market natural selection.    A political cartoon by Mike Shelton illustrates unequal standards.  It applies just as well if relabeled with a Darwinist donkey and a creationist elephant.  Evolutionists will scream and preach about honesty when criticizing a creationist position, but then will lie shamelessly in their own work and call it science.  They will even lie while calling their critics liars, and hypocritically call creationists hypocrites (see Evolution News).    You can almost hear in advance the charges that would come from the pro-Darwin blogs about our pointing out this little inconsistency in their latest just-so story.  Let a creationist be caught in some inconsistency, and the sparks would fly: You creationists are such hypocrites; you Bible-thumping fundamentalists with your narrow religious agenda show that you just don’t understand science.  Let an evolutionist be caught in an inconsistency, and the response will be either (1) ignoring the criticism, or (2) rationalization, like Well, you know what I meant, and we all know that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. (Visited 7 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *