I do.

And I think the phenomenon called phenotypic plasticity proves it. Plasticity, I say, is one of the things that occur in nature that could make it LOOK like things evolved. This is simply an individual animal's ability to change as the environment changes. I submit that every animal on earth has a degree of plasticity. In fact, many animals can change colors, sizes, shapes and even behaviors based on environment.

I also submit that every creature on earth is a product of their internal and external environments. In fact, these environments are in active communication at all times. For example, when a snail is in the presence of a predator, he is able to grow a thicker shell in an attempt to protect himself. When individual fish change environments they are able to change colors in some situations. They can also change sizes. Lizards are the same way. They can even shrink. Many mammals are able to quickly change their coat/fur color upon a change in environment. Also phenotypes are helped shaped by one's diet.

To me this is simple disproof of neo-darwinism because the necessary information must already reside the genome. I would like anyone to tell me how this is incorrect.....and how else could an animal adapt to a variety of different environments if this built-in potential for variation did not already reside in the genome?

Also if each individual animal is individually adaptive, then why should it have to wait thousands of years for darwin's version of adaptation to kick in?

Yes, some plasticity is built into the genome.

No, this doesn't account for the extreme variation in species on the planet.

First, the most current hypothesis is the modern synthesis and not really neo-darwinism anymore.
Second, adaptation and evolution happens on population level not individual. The basis for adaption are encoded in the genome. For instance size is both dependent on nourishment, but also on the ability to digest them (which is genetically encoded) and body development has of coure also a genetic basis. Already darwinism states that the basis for evolution is a pool of variations (although at that point no one knew anything about genes).

so are you basically agreeing that every animal on the earth is individually adaptive?....(this would undercut the need for darwinian adaptation by population via RM + NS) Do you think that all animals have simply evolved internal intelligence? Are you saying intelligence is 'coded in the genome"? If not, how is it that the internal deciphers the external without intelligence?

And my point is, if individual animals have the ability to quickly adjust to changing surroundings, then why would they have to wait around thosands of years for populational adaptation?......instead, each individual of the population would "evolve" at the same time, at all times. In fact, it undercuts the need totally for populational adaptation. Of course I'm coming from the viewpoint that all animals were created, thus there is no need for an explanation for the origin of animals. But this would make sense why there is a lack of undesputable intermediate fossils when there should be millions of them. If every animals adapts "on-the-fly" then there would be no intermediates.

Of course, some evidence in support of your astounding hypothesis would be useful...

A bird cannot change the size of it's beak, nor can it understand or communicate the need for a differently shaped beak to it's children, yet populations of finches grow differently sized beaks (over generations) depending on the environment.

This evolution does not take thousands of years, but can happen in a season as natural selection wipes out birds that cannot eat the food present.

Evolution does depend on variation within the gene pool, but there must be some selection pressure to favor one variation over another.

It does not take thousands of years. Humans have changed the DNA of plants in a matter of weeks and months. Mice have been bred with new DNA. We have complete control of DNA, so it's DNA that controls the speed of evolution of DNA through intelligence. Roaches and insects having a higher level of consciousness than us also happen to be more evolved. It's also a matter of giving value to genetic diversity.

I do.

And I think the phenomenon called phenotypic plasticity proves it. Plasticity, I say, is one of the things that occur in nature that could make it LOOK like things evolved. This is simply an individual animal's ability to change as the environment changes. I submit that every animal on earth has a degree of plasticity. In fact, many animals can change colors, sizes, shapes and even behaviors based on environment.

I also submit that every creature on earth is a product of their internal and external environments. In fact, these environments are in active communication at all times. For example, when a snail is in the presence of a predator, he is able to grow a thicker shell in an attempt to protect himself. When individual fish change environments they are able to change colors in some situations. They can also change sizes. Lizards are the same way. They can even shrink. Many mammals are able to quickly change their coat/fur color upon a change in environment. Also phenotypes are helped shaped by one's diet.

To me this is simple disproof of neo-darwinism because the necessary information must already reside the genome. I would like anyone to tell me how this is incorrect.....and how else could an animal adapt to a variety of different environments if this built-in potential for variation did not already reside in the genome?

Also if each individual animal is individually adaptive, then why should it have to wait thousands of years for darwin's version of adaptation to kick in?

Interesting can you quote some sources?

Check out the 'Pseudoscience' section on http://www.thescienceforum.com/ for a (very) extended version of lackadaisal's argument. He basically has no evidence, nor does he take anyone's intelligent rebuttal into mind. Just wait until he gets into the part about mammals having a "physical and mental agreement" of their mind with the outside environment while they're in the womb, how it is present from conception and controls adaptation and traits present at birth, and how smaller and "liquid" animals can "adapt" faster than others.

I would like anyone to tell me how this is incorrect

Why? You ignore it anyway.