Hey everyone!

 

According to Darwin's theory, adopted characteristics or variations passed on to next generation. If it is true, so why not the child is armless if his/her mother or father was armless.

 

As far as I know, mutation is needed to occur in gametes in order for variation to happen. And it is not neccessary that the mother or the father also had those variations.

Darwin lacked a viable theory of inheritance, so he fell back on some of the popular theories of the day. In a bit of incredible irony, Mendel actually sent a copy of his results to Darwin, but Darwin never opened the letter.

 

You're right about mutation and inheritance of mutated genes. This is why it's technically right to say that nobody is a "Darwinist" anymore: Advances in biology and genetics have resulted in a near-total re-write of the theory, though his central works (natural and sexual selection) are, of course, as true now as they have been for the past 3.5 billion years.

 

Mokele

According to Darwin's theory, adopted characteristics or variations passed on to next generation. If it is true, so why not the child is armless if his/her mother or father was armless.

You might be thinking of Lamarck's hypothesis of acquired characteristics being inherited. It was falsified over 100 years ago.

As far as I know, mutation is needed to occur in gametes in order for variation to happen. And it is not neccessary that the mother or the father also had those variations.

They don't need to display the variation, but they must have the genes for it in order for whatever trait to be inherited.

though his central works (natural and sexual selection) are' date=' of course, as true

now as they have been for the past 3.5 billion years.

[/quote']

 

I may agree with that but this man here doesn't seem to... What do you guys think about that???

There's nothing there which hasn't been gone over a million times before.

I may agree with that but this man here[/url'] doesn't seem to... What do you guys think about that???

That the author is a typical full-of-dookie creationist, thats what we think of that.

I may agree with that but this man here[/url'] doesn't seem to... What do you guys think about that???

 

The writer neither is a scientist nor represent current scientific views when he says: "Findings from the last two decades in particular openly contradict the basic assumptions of this theory. Many branches of science, such as paleontology, biochemistry, population genetics, comparative anatomy and biophysics, indicate that natural processes and coincidental effects cannot explain life, as the theory of evolution proposes".

 

I recommend you to have a look at a reliable source of information, such as:

 

http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/

 

Hope this helps