Was Lamarck right?

Interesting article -- thanks.Did the tree of life have multiple roots?

Thanks. I find the second one more persuasive if for no other reason than that the building blocks must have been the same everywhere and that it is reasonable to see that a single cell consuming another single cell could very easily hijack any part of the "victim" for it's own purposes -- this could result in a homogenization across the board before the cells became complex enough to stand on their own.But is this species or varieties ... if they all "interbreed" as it were, they would be one 'species' with lots of 'varieties' and the roots default back to a trunk.If the generation of replicators is by the same process, it is possible to have several variations on a theme in the first ones to develop, ones that then mix and match parts at the local "swamp meet" -- and perhaps DNA and RNA [are \ result from] those variations ...

and Darwin also had a section in his book on inherited characteristics via use and disuse. he didn't get it all right the first time either.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

yes, I am always amused when C'ists refer to "Darwinists" as if all of several sciences were defined by one man over 100 years ago, when there were several others that contributed or would have come to the same conclusions in his absence.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

Teach children to be creative, to apply logic, to be able to find information and then run that in reverse order and you have taught them to educate themselves

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

could pull this off to a new thread on LUCA, yes it is diverging from "aquired characteristics" as the mechanism is totally different ... more like hijacked charactereisticsI will look for the article

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand