brique wrote:
> Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:saednVcDZ806N_vanZ2dnUVZ_vWtnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>> Dan Clore wrote:
>>> Geoff wrote:
>>>> Dan Clore wrote:
>>>>> JTEM wrote:
>>>>>> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm afraid that isn't entirely accurate: Stalin rejected Darwin's
>>>>>>> theory of evolution, but instead embraced Lysenko's
>>>>>>> Lamarckian theory of evolution.
>>>>>> It wasn't evolution in any sense of the word. One common
>>>>>> example was how he believed wheat could be "taught" to
>>>>>> grow in the cold... opening the frozen exspanse of Siberia
>>>>>> to farming.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Under what you're calling evolution, the wheat adapts to the
>>>>>> cold, then passes it's adaptation to the next generation.
>>>>> You just described a theory of evolution.
>>>> No. The Theory of Evolution says that there is variation in the
>>>> population, some of which will be better adapted to the new
>>>> ecosystem. Individuals don't adapt, populations do.
>>> You're describing "the" theory of evolution, but there are any number
>>> of theories of evolution.
>> Sure there are, and none of them ascribe to individual adaptation such as
>> proponed by Lysenko.
>>
> But Lysenko's does, and, as Dan said, it is _a_ Theory of Evolution. Don't
> confuse that with any claim as to the accuracy or validity of Lysenko's
> Theory.

Quite correct. To take a more interesting example, H.P. Blavatsky
propounded an anti-Darwinian theory of evolution, in which humans
evolved from ethereal hermaphrodites who had reincarnated from the
planet Venus (apes in this theory resulted from the crossbreeding of
early humans with other animals). Not exactly an accurate theory, but a
theory of evolution nonetheless.

--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/3akhhr
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/clorebeast/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:22:37 -0800, Dan Clore wrote:

>> But Lysenko's does, and, as Dan said, it is _a_ Theory of Evolution.
>> Don't confuse that with any claim as to the accuracy or validity of
>> Lysenko's Theory.
>
> Quite correct. To take a more interesting example, H.P. Blavatsky
> propounded an anti-Darwinian theory of evolution, in which humans
> evolved from ethereal hermaphrodites who had reincarnated from the
> planet Venus (apes in this theory resulted from the crossbreeding of
> early humans with other animals). Not exactly an accurate theory, but a
> theory of evolution nonetheless.

Once in a while I learn something genuinely useful here. I had no idea
that more than one theory of evolution existed. Darwinism started out
well researched and has been refined over the years with the discovery of
details such as switching genes, jumping genes and so forth -- details
that can actually result in a certain amount of adaptation (and not just
selection), but I am amazed to find a whole cloud of theories. It would
seem that most of them are not well supported. We see this in some frogs
or salamanders that can change sex under certain circumstances.

Michael wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:22:37 -0800, Dan Clore wrote:
>
>>> But Lysenko's does, and, as Dan said, it is _a_ Theory of Evolution.
>>> Don't confuse that with any claim as to the accuracy or validity of
>>> Lysenko's Theory.
>> Quite correct. To take a more interesting example, H.P. Blavatsky
>> propounded an anti-Darwinian theory of evolution, in which humans
>> evolved from ethereal hermaphrodites who had reincarnated from the
>> planet Venus (apes in this theory resulted from the crossbreeding of
>> early humans with other animals). Not exactly an accurate theory, but a
>> theory of evolution nonetheless.
>
> Once in a while I learn something genuinely useful here. I had no idea
> that more than one theory of evolution existed. Darwinism started out
> well researched and has been refined over the years with the discovery of
> details such as switching genes, jumping genes and so forth -- details
> that can actually result in a certain amount of adaptation (and not just
> selection), but I am amazed to find a whole cloud of theories. It would
> seem that most of them are not well supported. We see this in some frogs
> or salamanders that can change sex under certain circumstances.

As this is crossposted to alt.anarchism, it's probably worth noting
Kropotkin's _Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution_. This argues in favor of
cooperation as an important factor in natural selection. (This really
isn't a rival of Darwinian evolution, more a difference in stress on the
relative importance of the various mechanisms involved.) The text is
available online and its very much worth reading.

--
Dan Clore

My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/3akhhr
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo

Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"