Comments: Following my failure to get my article, “An Evolution for Evolution Theory”, published in any scientific magazine or newspaper in 1993, I sent the following letter to many newspapers, but it was not published.
I recently devised and wrote a scientifically-based theory of evolution which is more logical, plausible and consistent with observed phenomena than neo-Darwinism. However, my attempts to get this theory published in British newspapers and magazines have been unsuccessful on the grounds, where stated, that it is too speculative.
Science has always progressed through speculation, which may become accepted theory when it cannot be disproved by practical testing. In the past, theorists may have been able to test out theories for themselves. In these hi-tech days, only a small number of people have access to the sort of equipment needed to carry out intricate scientific procedures. Therefore, if sensible theories are to become disproved or accepted, there needs to be an avenue for theorists to publish their ideas, however speculative. Since the discovery of DNA, the neo-Darwinist mutation theory has become more and more riddled with holes and it is high time the scientific establishment became more open-minded to serious alternatives.
Comments:During the next eight years I researched and wrote two books, the first of which, “The Alternative Life”, was eventually published (by Vanity publishers) in 1996. My focus had become the promotion of Lamarckian inheritance and the downplaying of genes.
Continue to 2001