IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

Deliberate conscious evolution

David Beorn dbeorn at freenet.vcu.edu
Tue Jul 16 19:30:17 EST 1996

On 23 Apr 1996, Chris Chetland wrote:

> From: Chris Chetland <rawmo at ihug.co.nz>
> Newgroups: bionet.molbio.evolution
> 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 - it's called CREATION!!  I know it's not popular to believe in God 
but there is really no evidence to support (as you suspect, apparently) 
evolution.  It is all a large leap of faith from the evidence that is 
there to the actual conclusions that CAN be accurately drawn.  For 
instance, what about dinosaur fossils??  They are found both above and 
below (as well as alongside!!) those of creature, including man, who 
aren't supposed to have existed together.  They go through some 
gobledegook about how this must have happened but the most obvious 
conclusion is that they were both buried alive together - not over long 
periods of time - if they were deposited over a long period of time, why 
didn't some of them ROT and be torn apart by other animals, etc.  

> >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

        *        David Beorn, dbeorn at freenet.vcu.edu (internet)       *
        *        Virginia FREENET                                     *


More information about the Mol-evol mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net