ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (10/17/85)
> I am spouting CATASTROPHISM, the only theory of origins which makes sense.. > Ted Holden Big deal. The scientific community quakes (..yawn..) at such blasphemy. `Catastrophism' has already been incorporated into evolution, Ted. And science has already learned whatever lessons Velikovsky had to offer. As a minimum, evolutionary science gained the wisdom that little good follows from the folly of suppressing heresy, which only creates martyrs. The scientific community at first unfairly pressured publishers not to print his ideas -- and when they finally were published, many famous authorities who did not bother to read his ideas signed overstated denouncements that later caused much embarrassment. Velikovsky, whether by luck or cunning, owes his notoriety to the rigidly dogmatic nature of evolutionary theory up to his time. Mutation was supposed to be the only way species changed; gradual change was supposed to be the only acceptable kind of explanation. And to hell with anyone whose ideas even sound remotely Lamarckian!! Much of this was partly the result of the religious reductionistic constraints required for biology to command proper scientific respect. Ted Holden is strongly advised to examine recent advances in evolutionary theories. Perhaps Velikovsky was right about the planet's primeval memory being traumatized by interplanetary collisions. But science has now accepted the likelihood of `traumatic' collisions -- as a family (probably periodic with a cycle of millions of years) of comets that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs as well as a huge number of other forms of life. Likewise, prehistoric stories of floods are arguably the result of the documented advance and retreat of the ice caps. Evolutionary theory has advanced far beyond where the level of knowledge which Velikovsky confronted. New facts from cosmology, genetics, geology, etc.. progressively confirm the truth of evolution. Furthermore, evolutionary has stolen Velikovsky's thunder by its conclusion that catastrophes (scientific ones) have, in fact, played a major role in creation. In the meantime, it appears that few, if any, real advances have been made in the verification of Velikovsky's speculations. Ted, if you really think his theory has validity, you would do well to read some of the excellent and accessible popular books written by Gould, who has incorporated some `catastrophic' notions into the scientific theory (eg - punctuated equilibrium). Perhaps you will even be able to update Velikovsky's ideas in light of the enormous amount of new evidence. Until then, your quixotic attacks against the obsolete ghost of a decades-old evolutionary theory are as limp-wristed as attacks against geocentrism.. -michael -ps.. Lamarckian evolution may be on the verge of respectability. Recent genetic discoveries, described by John Campbell in "Evolution at the Crossroads" (1985), indicate that DNA molecules, rather than being EITHER faithfully copies of the original OR broken mutants, actually undergo considerable planned self-modification according to the environment; furthermore, certain genetic structures reveal a remarkable new type of biological function -- to promote and direct the course of evolution, as a means for the descendents of a species to survive in the face of an evolving environment.