Since we're taking about evolution so much, and so politely, perhaps
it's
time to pull out the old Lamarckian vs. Darwinian evolution argument.
Lamarck reasoned that evolution occurred by the animal perceiving a
need or
a want, eg the giraffe changed because it wanted to reach the leaves
on the
higher branches. Darwin reasoned that the taller giraffes survived
better
and bred more because they could procure more leaves (i.e. energy and
nutrients). Thus far, science support Darwin all the way, I think
you'll
agree (but maybe I shouldn't presume that).

What has always irritated me immensely is that Darwinists haven't said
(as
far as I know) the following very obvious consequence of Darwinism:
If any animal evolved a mechanism for Lamarckian evolution, it would
be
selected for (provided that it assisted survival and breeding, which
it
presumably should).

There is laboratory evidence of Lamarckian evolution in the immune
system.
If you get brown mice and white mice of pure genetic strains, the
white mice
will not accept skin grafts from the brown mice (and vice versa). If
you do
a skin graft on a newborn white mouse, it will accept it as the immune
system has a period of immune tolerance during foetal life and shortly
after- wherein it switches off those cells that have been stimulated
(on the
presumption that they must be being stimulated by "self" tissues).
Thus for
the rest of its life, the white mouse can accept skin grafts from the
brown
mice. (this is called the clonal selection theory wherein the
"forbidden
clones"(those that attack self tissues) are switched off. In humans,
this
system often fails and results in autoimmune disease, which is common
in
grain eating societies but rare in hunter gatherers).

It gets more complex now- if you let the "tolerant" white mice breed,
some
of its offspring are tolerant to brown mouse skin grafts, which should
only
happen if Lamarckian forces are at work! I can't remember whether this
tolerance can be inherited via the father or only the mother (I
vaguely
remember it was both). Disclaimer: I haven't read the original
scientific
papers and I cna't guarantee that this hasn't been discredited- if
anyone
knows an immunologist- please run it past them.

Ben Balzer