Subject
THOUGHTS: Creationism and VN
From
Date
Body
[EDNOTE. This is Victor's second response to the topic, received shortly after the first. -- SES]
>>>>>I mentioned once at this list the academician L. Berg, and another
Russian anti-evolutionist, Lubishev.
Sergei: neither L. Berg (whose 'nomogenesis' evolutionary theory to some
extent resembles VN's, or rather Godunov-Cherdyntsev's senior's,
speciation theory) nor A. Lubishchev were anti-evolutionists.
Neither of them objected to the idea evolution in its broad sense of
change, the idea brilliantly introduced by Lamarck and elaborated by
Darwin.
They were indeed "anti-Darwinists" which in the context of their time
meant in fact "anti-neo-Darwinists" -- denying the major role of gradual
small changes via natural selection, and suggesting other possible
mechanisms.
A lot happened in biology since 1920s-30s, above all discovery of
molecular nature of heredity, viruses, jumping genes, symbiogenesis,
systemic (homeotic) mutations, etc. etc.
A modern evolutionist admits many things which were anathema in 1930s:
sudden and major changes, self-assembly, selections at system levels,
positive reinforcements - i.e. a panoply of mechanisms, much more
elaborated than simple stepwise tiny changes of neo-Darwinism of 1920s.
Some models of Berg or Lubishchev would fit many modern models.
I am sure that VN, with his keen interest to rows and series of
mimicking changes, knew his Darwin (who wrote in detail on mimicry); VN
also could be well aware for example of N. Vavilov's "homologous series"
(gomologicheskie riady), a rather non-neo-Darwinist concept.
By the way, modern "creationists" routinely use non-neo-Darwinian
concepts to refute (as they think) the very idea of evolution.
Victor Fet
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm
>>>>>I mentioned once at this list the academician L. Berg, and another
Russian anti-evolutionist, Lubishev.
Sergei: neither L. Berg (whose 'nomogenesis' evolutionary theory to some
extent resembles VN's, or rather Godunov-Cherdyntsev's senior's,
speciation theory) nor A. Lubishchev were anti-evolutionists.
Neither of them objected to the idea evolution in its broad sense of
change, the idea brilliantly introduced by Lamarck and elaborated by
Darwin.
They were indeed "anti-Darwinists" which in the context of their time
meant in fact "anti-neo-Darwinists" -- denying the major role of gradual
small changes via natural selection, and suggesting other possible
mechanisms.
A lot happened in biology since 1920s-30s, above all discovery of
molecular nature of heredity, viruses, jumping genes, symbiogenesis,
systemic (homeotic) mutations, etc. etc.
A modern evolutionist admits many things which were anathema in 1930s:
sudden and major changes, self-assembly, selections at system levels,
positive reinforcements - i.e. a panoply of mechanisms, much more
elaborated than simple stepwise tiny changes of neo-Darwinism of 1920s.
Some models of Berg or Lubishchev would fit many modern models.
I am sure that VN, with his keen interest to rows and series of
mimicking changes, knew his Darwin (who wrote in detail on mimicry); VN
also could be well aware for example of N. Vavilov's "homologous series"
(gomologicheskie riady), a rather non-neo-Darwinist concept.
By the way, modern "creationists" routinely use non-neo-Darwinian
concepts to refute (as they think) the very idea of evolution.
Victor Fet
Search the archive: http://listserv.ucsb.edu/archives/nabokv-l.html
Search archive with Google:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search?q=site:listserv.ucsb.edu&HL=en
Contact the Editors: mailto:nabokv-l@utk.edu,nabokv-l@holycross.edu
Visit Zembla: http://www.libraries.psu.edu/nabokov/zembla.htm
View Nabokv-L policies: http://web.utk.edu/~sblackwe/EDNote.htm