Exactly, and also why you will never find that Precambrian rabbit.<quoted text>
Based on his statements, it is clear that Darwin accepted acquired characteristics as one of the mechancisms throughout his lifetime.
I never meant to say it his whole theory of evolution was overturned by the tail-cutting experiment but at least part (AC) of what Darwin thought responsible was.
You said Darwin rejected and even refuted acquired characteristics which couldn't be further from the truth. He stated in his Origins book that these were inherited and in a letter to his cousin he said he believed in it more than ever. It was only several years after his death that the tail-cutting experiment proved acquired characteristics wrong.
(If you thought I said it refuted Darwin's theory of evolution that it is not what I meant to say.) I meant to say it refuted acquired characteristics which should have been obvious. Sorry I called you names but you always start it don't you?
And I promise I won't scream went you go off on your one-trick-pony, nested hierarchies. I just ignore it because - no offense - it's just that it's inconsequential. It sounds good but has no real teeth in it. You need real evidence like fossils and observing macrochange happen. Real evidence. Not comparing similarities which by the way has also been proved wrong.
Why else do you not see "nested hierarchy" used as evidence in peer-reviewed research?
What you really need is fossils of direct ancestors for all plants or animals; what I need is plants and animal fossils first appearing fully formed: I win by a landslide. You need numerous beneficial genetic mutations creating new organs, tissues, function; I need the complete absense of same and evidence of genetic entropy and loss of information resulting in disease which I have a plethora of: I win.
Now moving onto "evolution" of Whales....
But you creationists still look for the crocoduck.