[gore3000]

if you flood the planet and hold the heads of all dogs under water, they will not suddenly adapt and learn to breath water.

Great point! Interestingly, while evolutionists claim that environment causes genetic changes, they completely reject Lamarckism (that the environment is the cause of the changes in species).

[Havoc]

Is rather silly that they should both argue for and against depending on the situation. Sounds like another group I can think of.

[Dan Day]

"if you flood the planet and hold the heads of all dogs under water, they will not suddenly adapt and learn to breath water."

Great point!

Umm... You are invited to explain why you think such an idiotic scenario makes a "great point".

Anyone who thinks that this in any way says something about evolution, when evolution is pan-generational and his example expects a "sudden" near-miraculous change in an individual quickly enough to save it from certain drowning, is a dolt.

Interestingly, while evolutionists claim that environment causes genetic changes, they completely reject Lamarckism (that the environment is the cause of the changes in species).

Why is that "interesting"? The problem with Lamarckism (you *do* know what it is, don't you?) is not that it holds that the "environment is the cause of the changes in the species", but that it ludicrously holds that the environment *introduces* GENETICALLY-TRANSMITTABLE changes in the *individual*.

The classic Lamararckian example is that a proto-giraffe straining to reach higher leaves will end up with a stretched neck itself, and that it will then pass this on to its offspring. No, evolutionists don't believe that -- do *you*?