Addition to evolution theory?

Well I've been thinking about how the "Cambrian explosion" happened, (sudden burst of new body plans for all creatures) and I came up with this. If a parent was able to pass down physical traits acquired during it's lifetime, wouldn't this speed up evolution to the speeds that were seen during these periods of quick diversification? If an animal is able to pass down traits that it developed since birth (stronger legs for a mountain animal, for example) evolution would be happening much faster than if natural selection took place via random genetic mutations. Thoughts?

 

Evolution is a biological response to changes in one's environment.

The pattern is set only as long as the environment remains stable. Any change, you will either adapt or die off.

Time is only a factor if you can't adapt, not if you can.



x

 

The "theory of evolution" is not to be taken literally. Charles Darwin was a high-ranking Freemason, who was chosen to put out this dogma. It did not originate with him. In fact, if you do the research, his grandfather wrote a book about it many years before he himself did. It just wasn't sold to the public at that time.

The thing is, evolution is not a literal scientific theory. It is an allegory for the way these elites view themselves and their relationship with the "profane" (us); i.e., the strong have the right to rule the weak, simply because they're strong. It has nothing to do with actual, biological life.

 

Whoa dude that's a trip. My info is probably wrong then, I read it all in Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything.

 

What the hell Nalencer? I guess then God created the dinausaurs in seven days?!?!

 

I ain't getting into no war here am I? Hope not. My nickles worth. I believe that the 'MAN' that God created has been allowed to evolve. I also think mankind is on the verge of a newer evolution. (I hope it is one where we get more brainpower.)
Peace and Love to ya'll.

 

Typical conditioned response. Because, after all, if you don't buy into the unproven (actually disproven) THEORY of evolution, you MUST automatically be a Christian fundamentalist. Right?

Those who staunchly defend evolution are no different from those who staunchly defend creationism. Both are blinded by views given to them from the top, to confuse them about the reality of their existence as sentient and sovereign beings. The humanist view of evolution is very much a religion itself, unbeknownst to those who blindly follow this viewpoint. It is really the high Masonic religion of the inner elite.

The public is made to believe that you either have to accept the theory of creationism or accept the theory of evolution, when both are simply that: theories. I will say there is little to no evidence for the theory of evolution, which is continuously disproven as older and older fossils are unearthed. Man is far older than the theory of evolution would lead us to believe, but it's still pushed as fact because those who control the flow of information truly believe we are simply animals and that THEY are superior beings with the right to rule the lesser. Because I can tell you that THEY most certainly don't believe themselves to have evolved from apes. This is also where "survival of the fittest" comes into play, where they believe they are justified doing the things they have done for ages, including slaughtering people by the millions in their wars.

While I do believe in a creator, that does not make me a follower of organized religion. It means I believe there is more to this existence than the material world, and the material world is the ONLY thing that those of the humanist mindset believe in.... at least at an exoteric level.

 

Exactly. I am not even close to being a Christian fundamentalist. The theory of evolution is not literally true, and creationism (at least the Christian version) is bullshit as well. I don't know where life came from, and it's not one of my main worries at the moment. Do some research and you'll see that everything I said is verifiable.

 

I'd rather be addicted to sex than evolution

 

What the... Please forgive me but that sounds a little far fetched. What is your explination of why we are here?

 

I don't know. But just because I don't know why we're here doesn't mean I don't know why we're not here.

 

I still don't see why you don't think it can work, or can't be applied to biology. What does the evolutionary theory have to do with social classes? Nothing. I'm pretty sure that since it is a major belief it has been under some pretty heavy scrutiny by some pretty top level people, and that any major holes would be all over the news.

You aren't one of those conspiracy nuts, are you?

 

It has everything to do with it. There are a cabal of powerful people who have controlled this world for a very long time, and who consider themselves to be "elite", and above the rest of us. The theory of evolution is all about that: the strong have the right to rule the weak. They see themselves as the strong and us as the weak. They feel that we need them, that we're too stupid to survive on our own. Not that it's a benevolent agenda that they have for us; it is all about domination.

The theory of evolution has been under heavy scrutiny, and it has been disproved. But that's not mentioned in the news, because the news-media is owned by the same people putting out this "theory" in the first place. Don't believe me? How about you look into just how many corporations own the world media. It's a very small number. Now look into who owns those corporations. It's pretty obvious that the news is not controlled by the people, and it is not meant to be informative; it is the propaganda machine of these elites.

As for "conspiracy nuts", where did you learn that term?

You learned it from TV (and don't deny it). What would these elites have to gain by conditioning people with these ideas about "conspiracy nuts" and "conspiracy theorists"? Every time an alternative theory is mentioned in the media (which is rare), it's always attributed to "conspiracy theorists". People hear that and automatically think "wackos". This is not an accident. It's because they've been conditioned that way. You don't need to look into anything if the news calls it a "conspiracy theory", because it's just some paranoid guy sitting in is basement, dreaming up bullshit for which there is not a shred of evidence.

The only problem is that there are reams of evidence for all this, and very little against it. Have you researched it? No. Why? Because it's a "conspiracy theory", which means it's a paranoid delusion. You believe what you're told without ever looking for yourself to see if it's true or not. I suggest you start.

 

This theory that somatic adaptations could be passed down to offspring was commonplace in the 19th century, and I may be wrong about this but I have a feeling Darwin himself considered this a possibility, having no knowledge of the mechanism by which heredity works at the time he formulated his theory of natural selection. It's a common-sense assumption that giraffes grew long necks because they had to stretch to reach higher branches - but it's a completely false one. The problem is there is no possible mechanism by which acquired changes can be passed to offspring, there are somatic cells and there are germ cells, and it is only the replication of germ cells that is involved in the process of heredity. Evolution works by the interaction of two distinct processes, random mutation in the genepool and natural selection which allows beneficial mutations to multiply over millions of iterations.

 

Darwin and his ilk have had access to this kind of information for much longer than we have. A lot of what they tell us is false anyway, but they do know the real deal, and have for a long time. However, I content that the theory of evolution is not true, nor is it literal. The literal interpretation is the exoteric side which is given to the public. They know what it really means.

 

This 'metaphor' is based on a complete misunderstanding of evolution.

Evolution says nothing about "the strong" - it talks about something quite different, biological fitness, which is adaptation to survival in a specific environment. Strength may or may not be a factor; body shape (such as in the case of a giraffe), ability to hide well, co-operate effectively, detect threats, run away from predators, find food, mate successfully etc are some of the adaptations which might relate to an organism's "fitness" to survive and reproduce in a given environment.

Evolution says nothing about a "right" to do anything, here you are committing the naturalistic fallacy, evolutionary fitness impacts upon an organism's ability to survive and have offspring, not its right to do so.

Evolution says nothing about "ruling the weak", or ruling anything, but that those organisms best adapted to their particular environments will tend on aggregate to out-survive and out-reproduce those slightly less well adapted and that these average changes will become apparent through a population over the course of many thousands of generations. Where environments change, the test of evolutionary fitness also changes to benefit organisms better adapted for different circumstances.

So, fundamentally, your understanding of evolution is entirely simplistic and incorrect on all counts with demonstrably no awareness of any of its detail.
Please refrain from derailing this interesting thread, this forum is for people to discuss science. Thanks

 

You're the one misunderstanding it. To understand it at all, you need to realize that the biological "theory of evolution" is the exoteric version of the mindset of these elites. It is conditioning. I hate to respond to each quote individually, because it makes you look like a dick, but in this case I have to.

Come on. "Strength" does not have to refer to physical strength, especially in this case. I'm not saying these elites are physically stronger than the rest of us, or that they believe they are, and you know it. But what you just outlined is exactly their mindset: they feel that they are genetically superior to the rest of us.

Again, an exoteric version of their mindset. The exoteric version is based on "ability to survive" while the esoteric version is based on "ability equals right", "ability" being their percieved genetic superiority to the rest of us.

Again, this is exoteric. In evolution, survival equals power. So what we are really talking about, in the esoteric version, is power. Survival is an exoteric metaphor. They see themselves as superior to us, genetically, and that's what evolution is all about.

It may appear this way, because I'm talking about the real meaning behind it, not the literal interpretation. I know Darwin never out-and-out said "the strong have the right to rule the weak", but that's what he meant. I understand how evolution is supposed to work, and that's how I know it's false. It's got nothing to do with actual biological life.

 

Do you have anything intelligible to say about the science? This is a science forum, there's another one to discuss conspiracies.

 

I'm pointing out that the theory of evolution is not actually science. It has been disproven as science. What it is is social conditioning. You may not believe me, and that's okay. You don't have to believe me. Don't just take my word for it. What you should do is research it, like I have. I guarantee you will come to the same conclusions. All of your knowledge of it comes from textbooks and other official sources. You need to get out of that realm and actually research the subject; the science and the esoteric meaning behind it.

 

Take that as a no

Interesting overview of Darwin's theory of heredity - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangenesis - which was almost entirely wrong, based on Lamarckian model of hereditary acquired traits. Just one of the ways in which elements of Darwinism have since been revised, falsified, filled in by a fuller understanding of evolutionary biology

So, an interesting theory, OP, but one which Darwin came up with first and was proved wrong about. So we still need to properly explain the relative explosion of evolution in the Cambrian. Various other theories include environmental factors and the acquisition of genetic complexity.