The claim is that Radrook has misrepresented evolution as being Lamarckian.
But you're quite well aware of that, so I can only conclude this is intended to serve some rhetorical purpose.
I disagree with you; here is the actual quote (please note that it did not originate from Radrook but from another source, so he did not produce but merely adopted the misrepresentation at his own:
Radrook said:
Here is a quote I find interesting: Not saying it isn't somehow flawed, just interesting.
Feel free to object or crticize.
Another way to imagine the impossibilities of evolution is to think about what evolutionists claim.... that the habitat of an animal (or person) will cause them to develop traits or functions that better suit them to that environment, through information-gaining mutations and natural selection of those added traits. Let’s take a man and his wife, and say they live by the ocean. They swim in the ocean all the time, and hold their breath and swim underwater every day. Then they have kids, which also swim all the time, and hold their breath to swim underwater, because they are all pearl divers. Generation after generation of this family stays by the ocean, each son and daughter marry other people who live by the ocean and swim all the time. How long will it take before one of the children has the ability to breath underwater? The correct answer is never, but evolutionists believe that in a situation like this, eventually one of the children will be born with gills, and will be able to breath underwater. A logical person would realize this is impossible; a human would never develop gills, because the capability to breath underwater is not in the human genome. Evolutionists pretend that fish grew legs and lungs because for some reason “it was beneficial for them to leave water.”
http://www.themythofevolution.com/Site/Myth of Evolution.html
Let look at it again, in particular this sentence:
that the habitat of an animal (or person) will cause them to develop traits or functions that better suit them to that environment, through information-gaining mutations and natural selection of those added traits.
This is the crux of the problem. The quote use the terms:
mutation and
natural selection, which are, indeed part of the evolutionary theory.
At the same time; it take care to precise 'the habitat of
an animal (or person).
Obviously, natural selection applies to population and not person. On the other, Lamarckism idea is about individual reinforcing trait and organs they are using.
It seems that the source misunderstood the theory of evolution as being something similar to what Lamarck actually described and then misuse terms that he knew were use to the theory of evolution to described these concepts.
Indeed, the following example is about one individual person reinforcing his ability to dive through constant practice (Lamarck's "adaptive force") and then passing it to his descendant (Lamarck's "soft inheritance").
The quote makes it quite clear that it is not about populations (which is what evolve in the theory of evolution). It also makes no mention about member of this population out-performing and out-reproducing competing members (the actual natural selection). The quote also mention that it is the constant diving and underwater activity that bring the appearance of gills ("evolutionists (
sic believe that
in a situation like this, eventually one of the children will be born with gills") which is a Lamarckian concept ("la fonction crée l'organe"). In Darwinian theory, such a mutation (let's pretend that such an organ could emerge through one single mutation) would be just as likely to happen to such a future pearl-diver than to a nomad in the desert. The difference, of course, being that it would only be selected in the diver population.
So, yes, I agree with the other posters, the quote seems to be describing Lamarckism rather than the actual theory of evolution such as originated from Darwin.
The quote does indeed make use of the word "natural selection" that is indeed part of the theory but, in its explanation of the phenomenon, does not describe anything like it...
To me, what is being described and criticized is indeed Lamarckism.
