In article <4i7ivf$t94 at badger.heurikon.com>, jeff at cher.heurikon.com says...
>>In article <1996Mar13.193302.19695 at k12.oit.umass.edu>,
>Jill Turner (Mohawk Trail RHS) <jiturner at k12.ucs.umass.edu> wrote:
>> I would like to know if anyone out there has encountered any
>>unorthodox theories of evolution. This could be anywhere from the ideas
>>of Rudolplh Shledrake to Lamarkck. I somehow am unable to believe that
>>such an elaborate process that came up with such complex forms as ourselves
>>happened purely by random genetic mutation. Does any one else think
>>this?
>>Yes, I think that. The sites listed below describe a new theory wherein
>there was considerable random genetic changes, but they occurred in the
>primordial pond. The theory explains the origins and the diversity of life.
>What we see happening today are only relatively small adaptations.
>>http://www.fullfeed.com/genome>http://www.mattox.com/genome>http://www.mattox.com/genome/synopsis.html>>The new theory is by Dr. Periannan Senapathy, and it is based on his
>research into genes -- specifically split genes (i.e., eukaryotic genes).
>He found that the probability of occurrence of split genes in random
>DNA is very high.
>>Jeff
>--
>>Jeffrey Mattox -- jeff at heurikon.com>Cartoon of the day: http://www.heurikon.com
Check out the ideas of Goethe (Read Brady in 'Goethe and the sciences, a
reappraisal' (Boston studies in philosophy)Archetype ideas, dynamics), F W J
Schelling (e.g. Ideas for a philosophy of nature: Hard, but not completely
unreadable (close though but v.v. good)->(dynamics,Bildungstrieb
holism,Conciousness, pretty similar to ideas being bandied around by quantum
physicists, complexity theorists etc. J.F.F.Fries: nature as an organised
whole in 'Romanticasm in science'Boston studies in philosophy'. The
Cuvier-Geoffroy debate by Tony. a. Appel. Henri Bergson: Creative evolution
(Holist functionalism), and Russel: Form and Function (Lamarckian
functionalistbased) Theilard de Chardin: The Phenomenon of man (mashes
functionalism and structuralism, ideas on conciousness, semi Darwinian but
also brings in ideas similar to complexity theory and Wolframs universality
classes (See Artificial Life by S. Levy)
Also check out D'Arcy Thompson, Heidegger (the later stuff for interesting
assessments/critiques of ordering/reductionism/mechanistic thought
(particularly interesting for causing a few worries in modern molecular
biology). On a more recent front David Bohm's stuff is also quite important
e.g Wholeness and the implicate order,( an easy reading guide to Quantum
Physics that relates nicely to alot of evolution stuff). Also check out A.
Lima-de Faria's book Evolution without Selection: Form and function by
auto-evolution ( a bit mechanisty, and functionalisty but wrt evolutionary
systems probably one of the most important books currently on the planet! read
it if you think genes are actually important/essential for forms- you might be
surprised) Also check out Brian Goodwin's How the Leopard Changed it's spots
(works with field equations like Sheldrake but NOT in a New Agey way- a fun
book easy to read) or Mae Wan Ho's The Rainbow and the worm.
Also wrt the mutation thing, see the A-Life book Koza wrt mutations
~'Mutations are a side show in nature and in the simulations, i usually keep
them switched off'. Also check out papers on phenocopies espc one by Lambert
These theories/ideas, whilst many of them don't necessarily pertain directly
to evolution as it is currently popularly seen (i.e.~the gradual progression
of one organism to another from a common ancestor and all that jazz).are on
the whole logically pretty good within their systems, and approach 'evolution'
from a more dynamic, developmental non mechanistic, non reductionist, non
functionalist perspective
Have Fun
