Thursday, May 31, 2012

These New Studies Demonstrating Acquired Inheritance Don’t Even Give the Secret Handshake

Another day, another refutation of evolutionary thought, this time in the form of acquired inheritance. Yes, that’s right, the same acquired inheritance spoken of by Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de la Marck (otherwise known as Lamarck) and ridiculed by twentieth century evolutionists. Now, two centuries after Lamarck, acquired inheritance is well established in biology, no thanks to evolutionists. Even the usual, once obligatory, bow to evolution is gone. Traditionally, before presenting the scientific evidence, research papers must begin with submissive nod to evolution. A sentence or two about how evolution created the incredible findings about to be discussed usually suffices. Then, having dispensed with the secret handshake, authors are free to show their completely contradictory results. But now even that is gone. Evolution does not explain the findings. Evolution did not inspire or motivate the research. Evolution’s predictions are falsified by the evidence. And evolution ridiculed and resisted the entire idea. It therefore is only fitting that the fanciful evolutionary just-so stories, and yes even the secret handshake, should be expunged (see here, here and here).
Posted by at
Labels: ,

27 comments:

  1. GhostriderMay 31, 2012 at 1:06 PM

    Cornelius, you really crack me up. All that blustering and hand-waving, while the evolutionary mechanism is given in the very second sentence of the article:

    "After plants acquire resistance to pests and pathogens, their offspring shoot up through the soil with better defenses. The findings, published in a recent series of papers in Plant Physiology, are the first to identify small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) as a possible mechanism of this inherited memory response, and suggest a new strategy for managing crop pests."

    You have to be aware at some level of just how ridiculous these constant misrepresentations of yours make you look, aren't you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cornelius HunterMay 31, 2012 at 2:08 PM

      "the evolutionary mechanism is given in the very second sentence of the article:"

      OMG, what a forehead slapper. I completely forgot that evolution created everything so everything is an evolutionary mechanism. Wow. That's why you guys get the big bucks, you sure deserve it!

      Delete
    2. GhostriderMay 31, 2012 at 2:19 PM

      It beats debasing yourself by writing anti-science propaganda pieces for a religiously driven ultra-right-wing political organization.

      Delete
    3. Bob SorensenMay 31, 2012 at 4:30 PM

      Forsooth, 'tis not anti science, thou equivocator! Rather, exposing the cult of evolutionism, even in the face of its fundamentalists, is a work of truth.

      Delete
    4. bornagain77May 31, 2012 at 4:43 PM

      "Truth is treason in the empire of lies."-
      Ron Paul

      Delete
    5. Rebel ScienceMay 31, 2012 at 6:41 PM

      hahahahaha... You mockers. I love it.

      Delete
    6. UnknownMay 31, 2012 at 9:31 PM

      Let me get this straight...

      Thornton believes that, because a mechanism has been proposed, that said proposed mechanism prevents this finding from qualifying as Lamarckian evolution?

      How does that follow, exactly?

      Thornton, you have to be aware at some level of just how ridiculous these nonsensical posts of yours make you look, right?

      I don't think this whole "science" thing is for you, Thornton. It's too confusing; your simpleton mind can't grasp it. I'd recommend you get yourself a See 'n Say and maybe a nice Spider-Man coloring book. Those items are more befitting your, shall we say, arrested development.

      Delete
    7. GhostriderMay 31, 2012 at 9:42 PM

      Jared Jammer

      Let me get this straight...

      Oops! Too late, you screwed it up already. Maybe if you bothered to read the paper and what I actually pointed out instead of just jamming your head where it doesn't belong you wouldn't appear so ignorant. It's probably too dark in there for you to make out the words anyway.

      Delete
  2. PedantMay 31, 2012 at 1:30 PM

    I'm still waiting for Hunter's evidence for "real-time" epigenetics in the methylation of mRNA.

    http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/evolutionists-are-up-in-arms-over-real.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. bornagain77May 31, 2012 at 2:35 PM

    Jeremy Lin and Landry Fields "Secret" Handshake - video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7wxAaf0DAc

    ReplyDelete
  4. ZachrielMay 31, 2012 at 3:57 PM

    "Taking a closer look at the mechanisms of inheritance, Darwin proposed gemmules that diffuse through the plant from the leaves to a developing seed."

    Sounds like Darwin's theory of Pangenesis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebel ScienceMay 31, 2012 at 6:54 PM

      Sounds like Darwin's theory of Pangenesis.

      Darwin had a theory, therefore evolution did it. Yeah, sure. I got you.

      Delete
    2. ZachrielJune 1, 2012 at 4:18 AM

      The point is that Darwin's theory of Pangenesis is consistent with Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

      Heh. Here it is, almost a century and a half later, and Cornelius Hunter is touting the theory on his blog as if it was brand new. Pretty smart, that Darwin fellow.

      Delete
  5. AnonymousMay 31, 2012 at 5:37 PM

    Hi Zachriel, what about the Statistics? Waiting on your numbers from the last article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GhostriderMay 31, 2012 at 5:46 PM

      Ignorant Creationist

      Hi Zachriel, what about the Statistics? Waiting on your numbers from the last article.

      Looks like the ignorant Creationist was too lazy to look at the studies I provided with plenty of statistics and numbers.

      Isn't it funny he's got plenty of energy to bluster and bellow, but can't lift a single pudgy finger to do any reading and help himself?

      There's no cure for terminal willful ignorance.

      Delete
    2. Rebel ScienceMay 31, 2012 at 6:43 PM

      The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

      Delete
    3. ZachrielJune 1, 2012 at 4:27 AM

      Neal Tedford: Hi Zachriel, what about the Statistics? Waiting on your numbers from the last article.

      Here.

      Delete
  6. National VelourMay 31, 2012 at 5:38 PM

    It seems like every time we read a new scientific discovery, it pokes more holes in the sieve known as darwinism.

    ReplyDelete
  7. DaleFlanneryMay 31, 2012 at 9:32 PM

    Thorton:

    I see that Dr. Hunter is described as "writing anti-science propaganda pieces for a religiously driven ultra-right-wing political organisation" (or similar assertions) so frequently on this blog that I suspect that the accusers is paid (either in money, favours or recognition) to make that complaint.

    Which means that they themselves are "writing anti-science propaganda pieces for a religiously driven ultra-left?-wing political organisation".

    Pot, meet kettle. Could we please talk about the actual issues raised rather than attacking his character. (Unless that is the best chance you have to win the argument)

    ReplyDelete
  8. GhostriderMay 31, 2012 at 10:01 PM

    DaleFlannery

    Thorton:

    I see that Dr. Hunter is described as "writing anti-science propaganda pieces for a religiously driven ultra-right-wing political organisation" (or similar assertions) so frequently on this blog that I suspect that the accusers is paid (either in money, favours or recognition) to make that complaint.

    According to their web site Dr. Hunter is a paid Fellow of the Discovery Institute. If they have it wrong he should correct them and ask them to take it down. Merely referring to the stuff he pushes here as anti-science propaganda is about the politest thing that can be said about it.

    Could we please talk about the actual issues raised rather than attacking his character.

    I'd love to. Problem is, there hasn't been a single Intelligent Design Creationist come through here willing to defend this dishonest dreck. CH won't even defend it himself. He chums the waters with this offal, then waits for his spittle flying Creationist groupies to chime in while CH runs for the back door.

    Epigenetic mechanisms have been known to evolutionary science for decades. Why don't you start by explaining how these findings somehow cast doubt on the whole theory. Then you can give me the IDC explanation for the observed results. Be sure to present your positive evidence for any assertions you make.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rebel ScienceMay 31, 2012 at 10:59 PM

    Thorton:

    Merely referring to the stuff he pushes here as anti-science propaganda is about the politest thing that can be said about it.

    Your opinion is worth more than spit, how?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. DaleFlanneryMay 31, 2012 at 11:22 PM

      Perhaps it is worth whatever he is paid to comment? Thorton ... is commenting here part of your job?

      Delete
    2. Rebel ScienceMay 31, 2012 at 11:26 PM

      Thorton does seem to spend a lot more time on this blog than even Hunter. Strange, to say the least.

      Delete
    3. Elizabeth LiddleJune 2, 2012 at 2:00 AM

      Yes, it is strange. Hunter does seem to ignore most of the challenging questions put to him.

      Delete
  10. GhostriderJune 1, 2012 at 5:09 AM

    DaleFlannery

    Perhaps it is worth whatever he is paid to comment? Thorton ... is commenting here part of your job?

    Correcting the disingenuous, underhanded attacks on science and honest scientists by political hacks should be everybody's job. Promoting scientific literacy over Creationist politically motivated lies is a worthwhile endeavor in my opinion. Somebody has to stand up to the liars.

    I notice that just like all the rest of the IDCers you can't / won't defend Hunter's over-the-top anti-science rhetoric. So much for you wanting to talk about the actual issues.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Elizabeth LiddleJune 2, 2012 at 1:59 AM

    Cornelius, when you talk about "evolution", do you mean "the state of knowledge that biologists had several decades ago"?

    If so, sure, evolution is dead. It dies every day. And the people who kill it are evolutionists.

    You think that it was anti-evolutionists who discovered epigenetics?


    Here is an interesting evolutionist on neo-Lamarkism.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)