the
final piece of the evolution puzzle
papers on teem theory
4 free chapters - PDF
feedback
personal
about
charles darwin site
email danny vendramini
"My reaction: your approach makes very good sense because the ability of Homo sapiens to adapt to widely different environments (obviously a key feature of the species) will be greatly enhanced through the ability to shape somewhat the triggers of emotional responses in the manner you describe."
Professor Roger D. Masters.
President, Foundation for Neuroscience & Society
"I think TEEM theory is all very scientifically addressable, and can rely on standard genetic techniques."
Professor David Featherstone,
Department of Biological Sciences.
University of Illinois at Chicago
Dr. Mary MacGibbon, ACU, Australia
"If you are right, nearly everything I know about genetics and development is wrong."
Professor Robert Trivers
"How very fascinating!"
Professor G. A. Parker, Population and Evolutionary Biology Research Group,
University of Liverpool
"I will certainly look forward to seeing the publication of your book, not least because of some recently developed interests of my own on the evolution (and inevitability) of sensory mechanisms."
Professor Simon Conway Morris.
Cambridge University
"I taught Darwin and biology for more years than I care to remember. I am retired now but still like to keep up with what's new. I read your book extract with great interest, thanks for putting it online. It's a real achievement, up there with the best science I've come across."
Wiliam Novak
"Your proposal that two evolutionary mechanisms administrate evolution is so very simple but equally very profound. It brought to mind Thomas Huxley’s remark when he was reading Charles Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species, “How incredibly stupid not to have thought of that myself.”
Dr. J. Dayal Purohit
"Some
of your ideas parallel those of researchers who believe that
there
are very large portions of the genome dedicated to producing
non-coding
[regulatory] DNAs. Unfortunately, the evidence for this
is
yet to arrive, although a small number of microRNA genes is known."
Professor
Ross H
Crozier.
James
Cook University, Australia
"I
believe that his propositions for the
function of “junk DNA” are very plausible. He has
supported his propositions and conclusions by
a wealth of
scientific published evidence.. the publication of the theory
itself would be a
very worthwhile addition to our understanding of this area of human and
animal
biology."
Professor
Tord Kjellstrom. ANU, Australia
"Your theory is very novel and interesting."
Professor Kirk Winemiller, Texas A&M University
"As I read your website, it provides an explanation for thoughts that have puzzled me for decades. The possibility of an "emotional genetic inheritance" explains how information is passed down generations whereas natural selection would take too long a time to adapt."
Alan Wolliner, New York
|
Kardoorair
Press THEM AND US How Neanderthal predation created modern humans Danny Vendramini  "It has been a long time since I read a book about human evolution that I enjoyed so much." Professor John Shea, Stony Brook University, New York "Sometimes it takes an outsider to cut through the routines of interpretation in the most intractable problems in science. That is what Vendramini's approach offers the reader in his daring claims about the interactions between humans and their most famous evolutionary relatives, the Neanderthals." Iain Davidson, Emeritus Professor of Archaeology, University of New England. Visiting Professor of Australian Studies, Harvard University, Massachusetts www.themandus.org  Watch Danny Vendramini's Neanderthal doco on YouTube |
Latest - July 6th 2011 DOWNLOAD 4 free chapters of the Ebook 
|
by danny vendramini This site describes a radical new scientific theory - that in addition to natural selection (the evolutionary process discovered by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace) a second evolutionary process also exists that regulates the evolution of innate behaviours, instincts and emotions in multicellular animals. Although this second evolutionary process, which I call teemosis emerged about 543 million years ago to provide the first animals with inheritable behaviours (like instincts and innate behaviours) it also has an indirect influence on physical evolution. Although arguably the most revolutionary new biological theory since Darwin, the second evolution hypothesis is based on the simple premise that everything in nature evolves, including evolution itself. |
|
|
|
introduction
Read a non-technical introduction to teem
theory. |
|
|
|
|
| scientific
papers on teem theory Here you can read a selection of scientific papers on teem theory, including my 2005 paper published in the British journal, Medical Hypotheses. Citation: Vendramini, Danny. (2005) Noncoding DNA and the teem theory of inheritance, emotions and innate behaviour. Medical Hypotheses. v64, 3, pp512-519. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2004.08.022. Teem theory generates hypotheses in a number of fields, including evolutionary biology, palaeontology, psychology and genetics, so five interconnected papers were required to fully describe the theory and document the supporting evidence. Each paper examines a different aspect of teem theory. |
|
Danny Vendramini will be speaking at the 2012 Auckland Writers' Festival  9th - 12th May 2012 INQUIRIES |
'the second evolution' ebook Posted online July 6th, 2011 My book on teem theory: The Second Evolution is due out in 2012. It's written for a general audience. If you are going to read it on a computer or Ipad, PDF gives best results because it preserves the formatting (fonts,pictures and page layout.) If you would like to be notified when 'The Second Evolution' is published and available for purchase (either as an Ebook or printed book) simply email: info@thesecondevolution.com with the word 'info' in the subject line. |
|
|
what scientists say about teem theory The history of science tells us that radical new scientific theories are usually met with initial resistance from the scientific community. This is especially so when the proponent of that theory comes from outside the field or is an autodidact (self taught) like me. It doesn't help if the theory challenges what academics have been espousing and teaching all their lives. Normally it takes the next generation of scientists to evaluate the theory objectively. In the case of teem theory, the response so far from scientists has been what I'd call, "cautiously favourable." I think this is mainly because it's widely believed in the biological community that gaps do remain in the NeoDarwinian paradigm, especially as it relates to the evolution of complex, environment-specifics behaviours. In any case, you can read short sound bites or else read the complete correspondence. Some of it's a bit technical. Free to post your own comments. |
 My
Darwin tribute site is intended as a resource for scholars
and students. It includes
every photo, painting
and drawing
ever made
of Darwin during his life.
Visit the website |
does this mean darwin was wrong?Evolution undoubtedly occurs by natural selection and Darwin's theory explains incremental gradual evolution (what we call microevolution) perfectly well. The problem is that it's less adept at explaining the big ticket items - what we call macroevolution (morphological complexity, biodiversity, speciation etc.) and unable to adequately explain behavioural evolution.Teem theory doesn't refute Darwinism, it simply adds a new complementary strand to Darwin's theory. By filling in a few blanks and resolving a number of long-standing biological, palaeontological and genetic problems, teem theory can only strengthen our existing NeoDarwinian paradigm. |
 Dramatic new proof for teem theory "The best proof for a new scientific theory is to make predictions and for those predictions to be scientifically verified."
see also:
|
LATEST NEWS December 13, 2010 scientists create a new teem in the laboratory  A reader recently sent me a link to a paper in an American journal with the subject line, "Here's your proof." The journal was The American Naturalist (March 2010 issue) and it featured a remarkable paper by Professor Jonathan Storm of the University of South Carolina Upstate and Professor Steven Lima of Indiana State University. They reported that crickets traumatized by predatory wolf spiders passed their newly acquired fears to their offspring.  The
researchers blunted the fangs of wolf spiders with wax then put them in
an enclosure with pregnant crickets. The spiders hunted and attacked
the crickets but could not kill them. When the traumatized crickets
laid eggs,
their offspring were 113% more likely to try to evade wolf spiders than
control crickets that had not been exposed. As a result they had higher
survival rates.The researchers said that 'forewarned' crickets were also more likely to freeze when they encountered spider silk or feces, which also helped them avoid detection. Professors Storm and Lima reported, “Transfer of information from mother to offspring about predation risk, in the absence of any parental care, may be more common than one might think.” The researchers said they could not explain how the intergenerational transfer of environmental information occurred, but my from perspective, this is undoubtedly a simple anti-predator teem created by the teemosis evolutionary process. To my knowledge, this is the first teem to be created in the laboratory. It provides the strongest evidence yet for the existence of the teemosis process. It additionally demonstrates how teems are adaptive. The offspring had learned to escape and evade a predator they had never actually seen. Very exciting. |
|
|
|
|
|
'them
and us'
A scientific theory is like a key. If
it's correct, it can unlock all sorts of other doors. Last year, I used
teem theory to examine the mystery of human evolution - how, why, when
and where we became human. |
|
|
|
|
about
this
site
 email DV |
thanks and acknowledgmentsWhile my greatest scientific debt is undoubtedly to Charles Darwin, there are lots of other people I need to personally thank for offering to read material, providing invaluable feedback, giving sound advice and generally helping to test and validate the theory. They include, Rosie Scott, Tord Kjellstrom, Simon Conway-Morris, Jaak Panksepp, Professor Noam Chomsky, Anita Heiss, Larry Young, Elizabeth Weiss, Simon Chapman, Coral Wynter, Daniel Blumstein, Stanley Stalthe, Bruce Charlton, Richard Fortey, Tony McMichael, John Tyson, Andrew Bell, David Skibinski, Mary MacGibbon, Merlin Crossley, James Shapiro, Werner Meyer, David Featherstone, Kirk Winemiller, Fran Bonier, Robin Allott, Georg Striedter, Dayal Purohit, Wiliam Novak, Roger Masters, Pierre Capy, Jessica Wollard, Ross Crozier, Carl Schlichting, Bella Vendramini, Josie Vendramini, Tom Markham, Emily Walker, Fiona Yih Ling Chan, Robert Trivers, Timothy Mousseau, Geoff Parker and Peter Richerson. Copyright 2005-2011: Danny Vendramini |
