@Oceander @Mom MD @Sanguine@rangerrebew Call it evolution, adaptation, epigenetics, or chicken salad.....
....If there is a mechanism which makes the lizard change, and over generations those lizards that do not change die off, it seems a lot like natural selection, akin to Darwin's theories.
No one in the overall debate denies adaptation. No one denies natural selection. But epigenetics has nothing whatsoever to do with the Darwinian model. Epigenetics is actually a Lamarckian idea, not a Darwinian idea. (I have been interested in epigenetics for longer than it has been recognized as a worthy area of scientific investigation.)
I side with
@Mom MD, by the way. She obviously knows more about the topic than most TBR posters and lurkers do. She is persuaded, as I am, that the theory of evolution is at best sloppy science trying to rule out a Creator. Evolutionists presuppose that their theory is true and then build a
seemingly impressive
house of cards that reassures them in their intellectual prejudices. (In my opinion, even theistic evolutionists are almost hopefully confused by the "findings" the atheists toss around with hand-waving and much screaming and
ad hominem mockery of creationists. My theistic evolutionist friends ought to take notice of the scientifically unsupportable insinuations the evolutionists continually make--as seen, for example, in the very title of this thread.)
This is why I have likened the TOE to AGW. It is demonstrably rife with fraud. "Scientific consensus" is not "proof of proof" in real science. It cannot "settle" the science. We should be no more reassured by "scientific consensus" than the small but growing cult of flat-earthers reassure themselves by their own cult of consensus.
