Addition to evolution theory?

Ok, lets stop with the weird political shit now. Let's all assume modern evolution theory (genetic mutations + natural selection) is right. What I created this thread about is a thought on how periods of quick diversification could happen. If a species could pass down acquired traits instead of relying on genetic mutation, the diversification would become much quicker. Mayby by some way or another this happened, it would explain events like the Cambrian explosion.

 

Let's assume pigs can fly. Now I'm gonna dream up some idiotic theory as to why they never do it.

Seriously, wouldn't you rather be sure that the theory of evolution is true before deciding to "assume it is"?

 

Just to make you happy, I spent about 15 minutes looking at your social conditioning thing. I'll assume you are referring to this: http://www.mattfarina.com/2006/09/28/social_conditioning_our_scientific_views

Right after I read that, I started poking holes in it an realized how by poking holes in it immediately I was being socially conditioned. But I still fail to see how that ties into the strong having a right to rule the weak.

 

I disagree with the Evolutionary natural selection but I see what you mean, and Yes I agree that could explain it.

 

Any additions to the evolutionary process will undoubtedly involve the intervention of man.

Now that science has reached a rudimentary level of understanding, it’s now dependent upon man to accelerate the slow gradual process of darwinian evolution.



hotwater

 

Well, you'd be wrong. This is based on actual research, not an article by some Intelligent Design advocate. I told you, I'm not a Christian. This has nothing to do with religion. Besides, that article is not saying the same thing I am at all. It's talking about social conditioning of scientific possibility, which of course does go on. I am talking about social conditioning via scientific theory.

You have to understand that these elites share all their beliefs with us. They have their version, the real version, the esoteric version. Then they give us an exoteric version, which we think means one thing while it really means another. But they know what it really means.

 

WTF?!! you can't be serious. You dont know why he was banned and if he was banned for this reason fair enough but to compare it to Nazis... Maybe it was wrong but thats a totally different situation and what? Someone gets banned for saying the truth so they all must be Nazis. Yeah real logical.

 

Some people had good points, others made no sense. I won't use names...

What is evolution? Do you know its definition?

99% of species that once existed on this planet are now extinct. All life came from similar origins.

Peace and love

 

Yes, I know how evolution works. What I way trying to get at with this thread was an explanation for periods in history when there were many radically new body plans were CREATED, instead of just modified existing ones.

 

"When a lineage splits, the two branches evolve independently and therefore accumulate genetic differences. On average, the longer the time since their divergence, the greater will be their genetic difference between two living lineages would reveal the amount of time the lineages have been evolving separately.... It therefore seems plausible that the first appearance of animal phyla in the Cambrian was not mainly a divergence of lineages but rather a series of evolutionary events in which the skeletal and other anatomical traits that characterize the phyla were acquired over a period of just 10 to 20 million years... Turning now to the morphological aspect of evolution, why was the Cambrian a time of profound anatomical innovation? Two main proposals have been offered to explain the burst of evolutionary innovation in the Cambrian. The first is that there was some trigger, or the release of a constraint, in the physical environment. The second is that innovations in some lineages changed the ecological world in a way that promoted evolutionary responses in other lineages. These explanations are not mutually conclusive and in both cases there is still considerable uncertainty about the exact details."

~~~~~

Wow! What a mouth full! Basically, in English it means that something in the environment changed, such as oxygen levels in the lower atmosphere changed to promote larger species. The other possibility is that the species themselves changed the environment to make it more species-friendly.

Source: Principles of Paleontology, Third Edition by Arnold Miller and Michael Foote.