From: muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah)
Subject: Re: Do catastrophic events "speed up" evolution ?
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:10:28 GMT

In article <103@fedfil.UUCP> news@fedfil.UUCP (news) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.140722.5196@noose.ecn.purdue.edu>, muttiah@thistle.ecn.purdue.edu (Ranjan S Muttiah) writes:
>^>>Check out Velikovsky's EARTH IN UPHEAVAL, the chapter titled Catastrophic
>^>>Evolution.  It's all spelled out, and much of what you mention is covered.
>
>^>Ted, did V. study the fossil records to show this ?  We know that 
>^>extinctions coincide with a lot of these events (eh, not the orbital jumps
>^>of V. :-).  I'd like to know whether the same can be said about the 
>^>diversity (i.e., formation) of species.
>
>Extinction and formation of new species are flip sides of the same coin;

My point, Ted, is that if a "small" number of species got wiped out,
then the food chain will get affected leading to a chain reaction
of species extinction and in the process opportunities for new
species to occupy new niches.

>it turns out that neither would happen to anything remotely the extent 
>which they actually have, if at all, other than at times of immense
>catastrophes and the ensuing crises.

This is quite likely.

>Velikovsky presents several hundred pages of geological evidence for past
>global catastrophe along with a novel reinterpretation of evolution in
>EARTH IN UPHEAVAL.  
>
>Standard geology has its own explainations for many of the same phenomena,
>it's just that they don't really work, and that they are completely at variance
>with what I would call the historical record and/or the record of man's 
>early writings regarding catastrophe.

Hmm.  So man's early writings are more authentic and reliable than
what the geologist discern from their dating methods ?

>Given Velikovsky's scenarios, the historical record, the geological record,
>and what we see in the case of Venus all hang together and tell the same
>story.  Given standard theory, you need special explainations at every
>step of the way.

I'm lost here.  Where does Venus enter the picture ?  The standard theory
(by which I presume what biologist take to be evolution) looks to
generalize rules to comprehend the data.  So, I guess if you take V. to
adhere to only the written records as his database, it would seem that
his theory would explain what he considers to be data.  Here's a simple
test.  Do any of the early written records contain references to any
dinosaurs ?

>^Well, let me ramble on since everyone else is saying less interesting
>^things on this newsgroup as per it relates to evolution :-).  Do we know
>^for sure that the fossil records a few millions years before and after the 65M 
>^year old event that lead to the demise of the dinosaurs do really show
>^"extinctions ?" It may be that a few of the species living at that time were 
>^affected by the impact of the meteorite and then what followed thereafter 
>^was more competition between species leading to more variability in the 
>^species 
>^database.  In other words, the fossil records close to either catastrophic 
>^events or to the demise of a very small number of species would show the 
>^wgreatest variability in species (and therefore in the fossil record).
>^
>^All of this is amateur lingo of course, and I don't have any references
>^in hand to make it more precise.
>
>Several things to note:
>
>The changes between geological eras and the animal and plant species common
>to each were, according to all evidence, always sudden.  Standard theory
>will claim that sudden means a period of a million years or so between two
>longer periods.

1. It might just be that we haven't looked hard enough for the transitions, or

2. The transitions were lost (i.e., weren't stored in teh sediment), or

Consider the transitions for the present day horse. It's pretty convincing
Ted, even for a nonbeliever like me.

>
>This claim, along with the lengths of years of the various ages themselves
>are all based upon axioms of uniformity.  Once you begin to understand the
>reality of catastrophism, these dating schemes all go bye-bye.

Hmm.  Why do the dating schemes have to be affected by catastrophy ?
This is very very interesting.  Could you elaborate please ?

>Dinosaurs and other large creatures were always most susceptible to extinction
>at times of catastrophe, being least able to hide or get to high ground etc.

I believe the standard explanation is that sun light was blocked and 
with many other factors caused  a semi-greenhouse effect.

>Beyond that, dinosaurs and large "ice-age" megafauna would not have survived
>the changes in perceived gravity which accompanied the slow collapse of the
>old celestial order.  Nothing much larger than a very large elephant would
>have any way of lifting its own weight off the ground in our present world
>as I have demonstrated repeatedly.

Yes, I have seen umteen amounts of calculations on this BB.  However,
why would only animals be affected by this gravitational collapse ?
You have to show some remant effects of this (i.e., what do we see today
to verify this ?) so that we can test it.


>EARTH IN UPHEAVAL can still be found and purchased.  Despite the best efforts
>of American academia, 1950 was beyond the point at which books could
>actually be banned for heresy.

Eh, I think in this case it is profit, or perish.  If there are enough
people interested, then they'd buy it.  Even Newton could only sell
his great opus for a few pennies.
Newsgroups: talk.origins