My posts to talk.origins
The Psychon Theory
Darwinism refuted by adverse selection experiments
David Forster defended against dogmatic attacks
Euroview07 Galilei at last
The Psychon Theory (18-Feb-99)
Can an evolution theory based on panpsychism and reincarnation be a
scientific one? The site
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
presents such a theory.
Here's the abstract:
"The psychon theory is a panpsychist evolution theory based on a continuity
from elementary particles to human souls. Elementary particles are like very
primitive and basic organisms and we all (our souls) were elementary
particles billions of years ago. During evolution our psychons (souls) have
been responsible for the behaviour of atoms, molecules, enzymes, living
cells, primitive neurons, primitive animals, ... , monkeys and of our
ancestors.
The psychon theory has very concrete consequences, for instance there must
be a limit to the number of human souls, which according to the latest
demographic data could be even less than 7 billion."
Does somebody know a similar theory?
Wolfgang
The Psychon Theory (23-Feb-99)
Hello Adam!
You, as also most current scientists, ignore the philosophical
tradition. The psychon theory is based on philosophical
concepts advocated by the some of most outstanding
scientists of human history: Pythagoras (metempsychosis),
Aristoteles (finality), Nicolaus Cusanus and Johannes Kepler
(psychons or monads). You probably prefer to believe in the
certainly fascinating, but scientifically completely absurd
explanations of 'scientists' like Richard Dawkins!
You write:
> For some bizarre reason the author seems to think that
> computer science refutes evolution because of the
> "combinatorial explosion" - just how this is relevant is
> unstated in any coherent manner. As far as I was aware
> the contribution of AI to theoretical evolution studies was
> some very damn good simulations of darwinian evolution
>in action amongst virtual organisms.
The difference between AI (artificial intelligence) and AL
(artificial life) is that in AI computers should find solutions
which are not known before. As a programmer I cannot be
impressed (in the context of explaining evolution) by such
AL programs which are based primarily on the principle I
describe in my text 'Chance and Probability'.
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a03
One must not forget that a simulation is based on principles
differing from the principles of the original!
A few years ago it sounded silly to demographers and people
believing in orthodox demography that world population in the
year 2000 could be only 6.0 billion without major catastrophic
events, but it becomes more and more evident that the figure
will be not much higher.
The more silly a person is, the more seem reasonable facts
or theories silly to him or her.
You write: "Pity. I thought it might be a good theory we could
experimentally explore." For me there are only the following
possibilities: either you have been too lazy to read well what
I have written or you are silly or even dishonest.
PP (Wolfgang)
PS: I hope you don't take my attacks to personally, but I really like
to discuss as aggressively as the Early Fathers of the church.
Darwinism refuted by adverse selection experiments (21-Feb-99)
Darwin took it for granted that domestication traits such as big udders have
appeared because of selective breeding, but there is no proof for conscious
breeding in the beginning of domestication. Big udders could also be the
result of frequent milking over many generations.
If reductionist Darwinism were right, it would be IN PRINCIPLE as simple to
breed (or clone) animals with rare qualities as to breed or clone normal
ones, but this is disproved by animal breeding and by special experiments.
An even more impressive refutation of the the selection theory constitute
selection experiments with adverse selection such as the following example:
"Tryon has bred rats selectively according to their ability on the
California automatic maze, and, in a very carefully controlled experiment,
has shown clearly that the offspring of 'bright' parents contain more
'brights' than 'dulls', and that the offspring of 'dulls' more 'dulls' than
'brights'. The interesting point here in connection with Lamarckian
inheritance, however, is that both strains, 'dulls' as well as 'brights',
became progressively better at learning this maze." (Nature, Feb. 4, 1939,
Vol. 143, p.190)
In you are interested in more examples and quotations about adverse
selection experiments, see:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aa1.html
Wolfgang
Darwinism refuted by adverse selection experiments (21-Feb-99)
Answer from Wolfgang G. to Sverker J.:
>> Big udders could also be the
>> result of frequent milking over many generations.
> Could have, if Lamarckism had worked. It doesn't.
> If it had, then Soviet agriculture (based on essentially
> Lamarckian principles through Lysenko) would have
> been more successful than Western agriculture,
> based on Darwinian breeding.
Don't you find a less absurd argument? In any case, nobody
denies that positive selection results in positive effects.
>> If reductionist Darwinism were right, it would be IN PRINCIPLE
>> as simple to breed (or clone) animals with rare qualities as to
>> breed (or clone) normal ones, but this is disproved by animal
>> breeding and by special experiments.
> If you understood Darwinism, you wouldn't make a statement like that.
That's a very typical for orthodox believers: bluffing instead of arguing!
Are you sure that you understand more about Darwinism than me?
>> In you are interested in more examples and quotations about adverse
>> selection experiments, see:
>> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aa1.html
> Checked it. Not impressive. How come you only rely on research done
> before I was born?
Only somebody who doesn't understand at all the real problem can
write that the results of the McDougall's Lamarckian experiment are
not impressive in the context of this discussion.
The reason why I use old experiments is simple: experiments similar
to the ones which in the past have shown problems of the orthodox
theories are normally not repeated or become even suppressed.
It's the same in physics: experimental evidence for the fact that
electrostatic effects propagate at infinite speed you can easily find
in the work of Heinrich Hertz, but not so easily in later publications.
Best regards
Wolfgang
Darwinism refuted by adverse selection experiments (21-Feb-99)
Answer from Wolfgang G. to Mark I.
>> If reductionist Darwinism were right, it would be IN PRINCIPLE
>> as simple to breed (or clone) animals with rare qualities as to
>> breed (or clone) normal ones, but this is disproved by animal
>> breeding and by special experiments.
> Your argument assumes that Darwinian evolution is a result only
> of selection. It isn't.
This assumption is not essential for my argument. Essential for it,
however, are the materialistic and reductionist pre-assumptions of
Darwinism.
If there is enough raw material and production capacity, cars and
computers can be multiplied by any factor. Good software can be
copied in the same way as bad software.
According to pure Darwinism, the same should be valid for animals
and humans, but that's obviously not the case.
It is always possible to assume ad-hoc-hypotheses to explain away
this problem, such as e.g. the hypothesis that genes for rare
properties are often somehow connected with genes for low fertility.
Regards
Wolfgang
Darwinism refuted by adverse selection experiments (21-Feb-99)
Hello Dan!
>> "Tryon has bred rats selectively according to their ability on the
>> California automatic maze, and, in a very carefully controlled
>> experiment, has shown clearly that the offspring of 'bright'
>> parents contain more 'brights' than 'dulls', and that the offspring
>> of 'dulls' more 'dulls' than 'brights'. The interesting point here
>> in connection with Lamarckian inheritance, however, is that both
>> strains, 'dulls' as well as 'brights', became progressively better at
>> learning this maze." (Nature, Feb. 4, 1939, Vol. 143, p.190)
> That's because intellectual ability has little to do with genetics,
> and a great deal to do with raising an animal in a stimulating
> environment. Since 1939 we have learned that the health and diet of
> the mother during pregnancy, and whether or not the offspring are
> raised in a stimulating environment account for a huge amount of the
> variance in the "brightness" or "dullness" of the offspring, be they
> rats or people. Genetics accounts for very little of this.
Do you really think that Tryon was so stupid that he offered a more and
more stimulating environment to the rats and changed even diet during his
experiment? If this were the only experiment with a result of progressively
better learning despite adverse selection, your hypothesis could be taken
seriously. But there are other experiments with the same result.
See: http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aa1.html
And that "intellectual ability has little to do with genetics", is certainly
not the normal interpretation of Darwinism. I agree with this statement,
but it is certainly not correct within the neo-Darwinian framework.
Where do instinctive behaviour patterns and intellectual abilities of
animals and humans come from, according to you?
> That simple understanding pretty much destroys the conclusion of the
> "reincarnation of all organisms" psychon theory. I didn't see any
> mention of the most crucial contributing factors for intelligence,
> so someone truly interested in science (as opposed to someone
> trying to use psuedo-science to advance an agenda) would consider
> that to be a study-nullifying confound.
I think you have rather destroyed orthodox Darwinism than the
more scientific "reincarnation of all organisms psychon theory".
This theory not only explains such adverse selection experiments,
but it generally leads to clearer predictions than Darwinism, even
to demographic:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/demography.html
Cheers
Wolfgang
Darwinism refuted by adverse selection experiments (21-Feb-99)
>> If reductionist Darwinism were right, it would be IN PRINCIPLE as
>> simple to breed (or clone) animals with rare qualities as to breed
>> (or clone) normal ones, but this is disproved by animal breeding and
>> by special experiments.
> Oh, I don't know about that. Dogs are pretty diverse, orginated from
> wolves, and now we see dogs ranging from the chihuahua to the
> St. Bernard.
http://www.kc.net/~wolf2dog/index.html
Thank you for the very interesting reference. The text "Multiple and
Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog" of this site begins with the
following paragraph:
"The archaeological record cannot resolve whether domestic dogs
originated from a single wolf population or arose from multiple
populations at different times (1, 2). However, circumstantial
evidence suggests that dogs may have diverse origins (3). During
most of the late Pleistocene, humans and wolves coexisted over
a wide geographic area (1), providing ample opportunity for
independent domestication events and continued genetic
exchange between wolves and dogs. The extreme phenotypic
diversity of dogs, even during the early stages of domestication
(1, 3, 4), also suggests a varied genetic heritage. Consequently,
the genetic diversity of dogs may have been enriched by multiple
founding events, possibly followed by occasional interbreeding
with wild wolf populations."
http://www.kc.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
The "extreme phenotypic diversity of dogs, even during the early
stages of domestication" could also suggest, that it is simply an
error to assume that chihuahuas did originate from wolves by
selective breeding in some thousands years. As far as I know,
wild little dogs still exist. And we have no direct evidence that
there actually was selective breeding in the early stages of
domestication. So my hypothesis that the phenotypic diversity
of wolves and dogs appeared long before dogs were domesticated
and was only reinforced by selective breeding, is not more
speculative than your alternative.
One has never succeeded in creating such a diversity in other
animal species, and it is only in the case of dogs that such a
power could be ascribed to selective breeding.
Cheers
Wolfgang
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
Darwinism refuted by adverse selection experiments (23-Feb-99)
Hello Mark!
I'm in doubt whether your last note's content actually needs
a reply.
You write that I "completely ignore the source of variation",
despite the fact that my argument
"If reductionist Darwinism were right, it would be IN PRINCIPLE
as simple to breed (or clone) animals with rare qualities as to
breed (or clone) normal ones, but this is disproved by animal
breeding and by special experiments."
does not depend on variation and selection. Good racehorses
and police dogs cannot be reproduced as easily as ordinary
farmhorses and stray dogs. Ask a breeder!
And you make the same error dogmatists have made at all times:
you assume that the currently official explanations of nature and
life are for the first time in human history the true explanations.
That general survival is possible does not depend on how we
explain this fact!
Wolfgang (PP)
Darwinism refuted by adverse selection experiments (23-Feb-99)
Hello Loren!
You write: "The propagation of learned behaviours (for
instance, effective learning methods, or hunting strategies)
can be modeled using something like a Darwinian 'variation
and selection' framework: i.e. more successful strategies
allow their learners to either reproduce more, or to
propogate their strategies against less successful ones."
The essential point of adverse selection experiments is the
following: the animals with the most successful strategies
are not allowed to reproduce, but the animals with the least
successful are allowed. And such experiments have shown
that despite adverse selection the successful strategies
propagate!
For further information, see:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aa1.html
Wolfgang (PP)
Darwinism refuted by adverse selection experiments (23-Feb-99)
Hello Sverker Johansson!
I think it is very unlikely that you understand Darwinism better than
me, because in that case, also you should have recognized that
random mutations and selection cannot be the essential part of
evolution.
You write that there is plenty of evidence that acquired characters
are not inherited. I'd like to know this evidence. I know that some
experiments have been performed such as the following one:
the tails of mice were cut off over generations, but even after
many generations only mice with normal tails were born. This
was interpreted as a success of Darwinism. But nobody would
try to breed mice without tails during the same number of
generations by selection.
Here a quotation:
"In designing his experiments, McDougall kept in mind two
principles which previous investigators have overlooked. These
are, first, that 'the adaptation investigated should be achieved
by the intelligent purposive efforts of the organism concerned',
and, second, that it should be of such a nature that slight
degrees of adaptation should be measurable, for it has
already been shown by Lamarck's opponents that acquired
characteristics are not transmitted as 'perfected wholes of
structure or function".
(Nature, Feb. 4, 1939, Vol. 143, p.188)
I really would like to know the facts and arguments you think
are in favour of the selection theory and refute other explanations
such as mine. If the behaviour of our hair, fingernails and toenails
or also the behaviour of babies has changed during the last
thousands of years, then this could be rather strong evidence
against Darwinism.
You have not yet shown that you were not bluffing when writing
"If you understood Darwinism, you wouldn't make a statement
like that."
My statement
"If reductionist Darwinism were right, it would be IN PRINCIPLE
as simple to breed (or clone) animals with rare qualities as to
breed (or clone) normal ones, but this is disproved by animal
breeding and by special experiments."
is not affected by your explanation
"Selection works on the available variation. This variation is ultimately
supplied by mutation, but in the short run the breeder has to rely on
what's already there. And what's already there is dominated by small
variations around the normal. In order to select for rare qualities, one
has to wait for an appropriate (and at the same time non-lethal)
mutation to turn up, which might be a long wait."
because my argument does not depend on variation and selection. It
is based on the fact that good racehorses and police dogs cannot be
reproduced as easily as ordinary farmhorses and stray dogs.
My knowledge of English is certainly not the best, but according to my
feeling for language, my statement
"The experiment of Agar's group is more convincing than the one
of Crew, because they took less precautions to prevent undesired
results."
makes sense. Agar's experiment is more convincing than Crew's,
because Crew tried more to bias the results. Everybody knows
that imbreeding has negative effects, also on learning capacity.
How can a honest and serious researcher who should test
whether there is an increasing facility in learning, practise such
close inbreeding that finally all his rats became extinct?
Nevertheless, Crew actually succeeded. Darwinists claim that the
very convincing evidence found by McDougall has been refuted by
Agar!
If in the second generation the best rat (out of 22 rats) makes 21
errors and in the twenty second generation 9 rats (out of 98) make
no error at all, only somebody lacking common sense needs
complicated statistical tools. You should rather criticize the use of
statistics in physics!
Here a quotation you also can find in my html-text:
"His (McDougall's) principal evidence of Lamarckian inheritance
is comprised in the following facts:
1) There has been a progressive - though irregular - decline in
the average number of errors per generation; a very marked decline
in the number of errors made by the best rat of each generation;
and a less certain decline in the number of errors made by the
worst rat.
2) McDougall found, as we have, that his rats showed a slight
initial preference for the bright passage. In the later generations
both of the main experiment, and of the experiment in which
training was combined with adverse selection, this was turned
into a pronounced preference of the dim passage."
(Agar, Drummond & Tiegs, 1935, Report on a McDougall's
Lamarckian Experiment on Training of Rats , J. Exp. Biol. 12,
p.209)
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aa1.html
In any case, I make no accusations of conspiracy. I only have noticed
that scientists often behave in a similar way as pupils and students
already knowing the solution of a problem do. In the same way as
students try to get the DESIRED result of a problem or of an
experiment, many scientists try unconsciously to prove experimentally
their prejudices.
I'm serious when writing that electrostatic effects are actions at a
distance. There is a very simple experiment which can refute the
whole scientific world view. This view is based on the validity of the
equations of Maxwell and on the premise that all electromagnetic
effects propagate at the speed of light. (That these two premises
are logically inconsistent, is another problem.)
It is quite possible that this experiment has been executed without
publishing the results. I have been proposing it for some time. It is
not even necessary to carry it out, one must only read carefully the
works of Heinrich Hertz, who was the first to prove the existence of
electromagnetic radiation. Hertz was a honest person and did not
keep quiet about all the results which were in contradiction with his
own beliefs (as unfortunately most scientists do).
Hertz clearly found by interference effects that electrostatic effects
propagate at infinite speed. But he was so convinced about the
inexistence of actions at a distance that he did not believe in these
effects. Hertz also found in experiments, which he carried out
several times very carefully, that the speed of electric waves in wires
is about 200000 km/s (which is correct). This result was against the
theory. So, when other researchers claimed to have confirmed that
this speed was exactly the speed of light, Hertz explained his own
results by unexplainable systematic errors!!!
It is generally admitted that the situation nearby an emitting dipole
antenna does not agree with the normal explanation and the
drawings of waves peeling off, which can be found in any textbook.
So if we take seriously logic we must conclude that this explanation
is in principle wrong, or don't you think so? If you are interested,
I'll mail you the relevant (German) quotations of Heinrich Hertz.
http://members.lol.li/twostone/a3.html (in German)
Regards
Wolfgang
Darwinism refuted by adverse selection experiments (26-Feb-99)
Hello Sverker Johansson!
Your answer to my statement that "random mutations and selection
cannot be the essential part of evolution" is:
"Random mutations and selection _are_ the essential parts of
Darwinism. Which other stuff do _you_ consider to be the essential
parts of Darwinism instead?"
There is a serious epistemological error showing how biased your
reasonings (unconsciously) may be: you probably take all the evidence
in favour of evolution as evidence in favour of Darwinism.
You write:
"The success of Darwinism is that selection _does_ affect tail
length. Enough experiments in that vein have been done."
The results, however, are not impressive at all. If mice with substantial
phenotypic changes really had been created by selective breeding,
one certainly could find photos of them in every orthodox textbook on
Darwinism.
You write that "Lamarckism predicts quick results, whereas
Darwinism doesn't". That's certainly not a logical consequence
from the principles Lamarckism is based on, but it is a very efficient
argument for biasing experimental results: Lamarckism can be
refuted by short experiments, whereas Darwinism cannot!!!
In any case I do not advocate Lamarckism, but a theory which is
consistent with all the facts I know:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
That "acquired damage should be passed on just as well" is valid
for both Larmarckism and the psychon theory. It should be possible
to find empirical evidence for this in laboratory rats and one certainly
finds such evidence in mental asylums.
Hairs and nails have been cut off in most regions of the world over
many generations. What would happen to a child whose nails are
never cut off, as it probably was the normal case some thousands
years ago? That you think Darwinism could explain by genetic
drift or selection such a change in behaviour of hair and nails (if it
happened) may suggest that (at least for you) Darwinism is a
non-falsifiable theory.
You write that my statement
"If reductionist Darwinism were right, it would be IN PRINCIPLE
as simple to breed (or clone) animals with rare qualities as to
breed (or clone) normal ones, but this is disproved by animal
breeding and by special experiments."
is wrong. This time you give to understand why it should be wrong:
the less variation, the more difficult to reproduce. But even if we
accept this explanation, my statement remains true in the case of
cloning, because there is no fusion of two haploid chromosome
sets created by 'random' recombination which could result in
genetic defects.
There is, however, a lot of evidence against the principle 'the less
variation, the more difficult to reproduce'. There are strains of rats,
mice and of many other species which have much less variation
than e.g. Chihuahuas, but remain very fertile.
A logical consequence of this principle is that animals which are
difficult to reproduce must have a much higher risk of genetic
defects than normal. As far as I know, this is not the case!
Fecundity nowadays is much lower than a few decades ago in
many countries (especially in south east Asia). Do you explain it
also by a decrease in variation? (There is always in infinity of ad
hoc hypotheses to explain s.th. not agreeing which a general law).
You ask me for the reason given by Crew why he practised such
close inbreeding that finally all his rats became extinct. The only
relevant statement I have found in his paper is:
"Reading the earlier reports, I found it impossible to overthrow
McDougall's conclusions by argument. Yet, though I could not
deny that McDougall was possibly justified in so regarding them,
I could not bring myself to accept the results he had obtained
as satisfying evidence of the reality of Lamarckian transmission.
I formed the opinion that his conclusions would be shown, by
further experimentation, to be unwarranted, for I had become
more and more critical of ... ".
It is an error to assume that our debate "is a debate that was firmly
settled" only because the debate was declared to be settled after
Crew had 'refuted' McDougall's experiments. The fact that Agar's
results cannot be explained by Lamarckism was interpreted as
confirmation of Darwinism, notwithstanding the fact that the results
are not more compatible with this prevailing theory.
If electrostatic effects are actions at a distance, certainly also RT,
QM, QED and so on are concerned and modern physics is shown
to be only quantitatively better than metaphysics of the times of
Immanuel Kant.
The derivation of e.m. waves is based on the divergence theorem
(the first Maxwell equation) and it cannot be denied that this
theorem is based on instantanous effects. Einstein's 1905 paper
on relativity does not touch this problem.
It is easy to test my claim experimentally. Interference effects
between waves in a wire orginating from the center of a brass
disc and the electrostatic effects of the disc can be measured.
If oscillations of 100 Megahertz are used and the speed of the
wire waves is 200 000 km/s, we get a wave length of 2 meters.
If electrostatic effects propagate instantanously, after 2m, 4m,
6m, ... the wire must be in phase with the electrostatic effect of
the disc. At least the data found by Hertz clearly suggest actions
at a distance.
(Heinrich Hertz, Gesammelte Werke, Band 2, Leibzig, 1894,
p 8, 118, 127-130. An English translation exists.)
In my last note I wrote:
"Hertz also found in experiments, which he carried out several
times very carefully, that the speed of electric waves in wires is
about 200000 km/s (which is correct). This result was against the
theory."
You have answered:
"Not against Maxwell's it wasnt."
I garantee you, it was!!! (see 1894, p. 12, 14, 15) That's why Hertz
himself gave preference to the experiments of others 'proving' that
wire waves propagate at exactly the speed of light.
This case clearly shows how dangerous it is to rely on modern
textbooks instead of studying original papers!
Cheers
Wolfgang
Darwinism refuted by adverse selection experiments (27-Feb-99)
Hello Louann Miller!
Your write that I should define 'evolution' and 'Darwinism' as I
myself use the terms. You are right. There is plenty of confusion
(and unjustified criticism) because we are not always aware
that others do not mean the same concepts as we do by the
same terms.
The idea of a continuous evolution of the world and of life has
existed long before Darwin. Darwin took evolution as a fact
and explained it by variation and selection. Because in his
books he defended evolution and his explanation of it at
the same time, and his theory became the prevailing one,
'evolution' and 'Darwinism' are often used at synonyms.
In a discussion with a creationist who rejects both continuous
evolution of all species and Darwin's explanation of it, it may be
not very important to distinguish between 'evolution' and
'Darwinism', but in a discussion about alternative theories of
evolution the distinction is a prerequisite.
Wolfgang
Darwinism refuted by adverse selection experiments (28-Feb-99)
Hello Sverker Johansson!
It took long until I realized that the expression "to breed animals
with rare qualities" is ambiguous:
1) to breed (reproduce) animals with (existing) rare qualities
2) to breed (create) animals with (new) rare qualities
I always have intended the first meaning and you responded
rather to the second.
I think that you have given only in your previous but not in your
current note a possible explanation for my statement:
If Darwinism were right, it would be IN PRINCIPLE as simple to
reproduce animals with rare qualities as to reproduce normal ones,
but this is disproved by animal breeding and by special experiments.
Your current answer contains two elements:
1) the appearance of new variations for rare qualities
2) the selection of yet existing variations for rare qualities
The first is not relevant to my argument. And in the case of the
second one must explain why strains with such rare qualities
cannot be reproduced as easily as strains with more common
qualities. The most reasonable explanation within Darwinism seems
to me what I thought was your position in your previous note: 'the
less variation, the more difficult to reproduce'.
That rare qualities of single individuals cannot be easlily spread in
a population can be explained by recessive genes.
"There are dominant allels (gene variants) for properties which
only rarely appear in animal populations. If selective breeding or
another selection results in a large spread of such an allel, it often
becomes recessive. Such a dominance inversion contradicts
modern genetics, but can easily be explained by the fact that the
number of psychons needed for the rare properties to appear
are limited."
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a11
There are also whole species which are difficult to reproduce. And
don't forget: if there is enough raw material and production capacity,
cars and computers can be multiplied by any factor. Good software
can be copied in the same way as bad software.
I fully agree with what you think are the essential parts of
Darwinism: reproduction (a concept based on finality!!!),
variation and selection. My opinion, however, is that if somebody
really understands these essential parts of Darwinism with
all their bases, consequences and implications, then this person
must conclude, that Darwinism cannot explain a continuous
evolution of species in the context of the known empirical facts.
That Chihuahuas emerged from wolves by a few thousand
years of selective breeding is an unproven (maybe even absurd)
hypothesis. As far as I know, wild little dogs still exist. The facts
only suggest that chihuahuas and wolves had a common
ancestor. That you explain away the failures to create mice with
substantial phenotypic changes by selection like this, seems
to me another example that you take evidence for evolution as
evidence for Darwinism.
see: http://www.kc.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
A selection scenario is always possible if one considers only one
single characteristic such as nails. But there are hundreds of
characteristics of humans which are more important than nails.
For macroevolution to work many enzyme types, many cell types
and other structures must evolve at the same time together with
behaviour patterns. Because it is generally accepted that negative
mutations are more likely than positive ones, the probability of your
selection scenario is so low that we must exclude it.
You are interested in the continuation of Agar's statement I quoted:
"... for I had become more and more critical of McDougall's use of
controls, of his neglect to maintain pedigrees and individual records.
This being so, there was nothing left for me to do save to repeat the
experiment myself".
But these criticisms are not justified, because Agar has confirmed
the results of McDougall. That even Agar's control line became
progressively better in learning the task (this fact has remained
unexplained until today) is very strong evidence for my theory.
There are not "innumerable examples supporting Darwinism". There
is rather one basic principle refuting Lamarckism: the pre-assumption
that all the information needed for organisms to survive is stored in
the DNA or in other material structures. That "the phenotype is
'scanned' and reverse-engineered into the germ-line" actually is
hardly conceivable.
All my theories are built on existing knowledge. They are a
continuation of the physics of Kepler. Kepler was the first who
substantially surpassed the astromony of Aristarchus of Samos
(ca. 310 - ca. 230 BC) by smashing the whole epicycle theory
and by replacing it by modern physical laws. Such laws seemed
to the contemporary scientists (even to Galiliei) as absurd as
psychons seem to you. Kepler explained nature in a panpsychist
way! Kepler's work was partially used and partially ridiculed and
fought by Galilei, Descartes, Newton, Leibniz and maybe even
by Bacon and Hobbes.
Almost all modern scientists lack an adequate understanding of
epistemology. If you think that one cannot take seriously a theory
which introduces the concepts 'soul' and even 'reincarnation', then
you should study epistemology, especially the one of Occam or of
Einstein: the only way to judge a theory is to look at its number of
concepts (the less the better) and at its testable consequences
and predictions. And one must never demand of the concepts of
a new theory to be explainable by the concepts of the old theory!
You think that modern physics is "quantitatively better by about
15 decimal places" 'than metaphysics of the times of Immanuel
Kant'. I suppose that this is an allusion to the alleged claim that
general relativity has been confirmed to 14 decimal places (and
QED to 11 decimal places). Franco Selleri for instance does not
take seriously such claims. In my opinion such claims (e.g. stated
by Roger Penrose, "The Nature of Space and Time", PUP, 1995)
are rather naive, especially if one takes into account that basic units
of measurement such as meter cannot be defined so exactly (an
error of 10-^14 corresponds to 1.5 mm when measuring the distance
between earth and sun) and that the kinematics of galaxies has
not even confirmed the first decimal place of ART. The introduction
of not observable matter is a pure ad hoc hypothesis and makes
ART an unfalsifiable theory.
The generalization from the experimentally confirmed photons to
photons mediating electrostatic forces is not justified. I have
explained this in my German page:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/a3.html.
Electrostatic attraction cannot even be explained qualitatively in this
way because under momentum conservation two bodies can only drift
apart by exchanging photons, and momentum conservation of photons
has been experimentally confirmed!
It is Hertz who distinguishes between electrostatic and electrodynamic
effects. He found 'electrodynamic forces' (e.m. waves) decreasing
inversely proportionally to the distance from the source, and
'electrostatic forces' decreasing inversely proportionally to the
distance square. In my example the disc charge and its actions at
a distance change at a frequency of 100 Megahertz and are
therefore not 'static' in your sense.
Don't you know the application of the Gauss divergence or flux or
integral theorem to incompressible liquids which leads to instantanous
effects at a distance?
That e.m. waves are derived from the interplay of the full set of
Maxwell's equations, not just from one, I do not deny. But if one
of these equations is based on actions at a distance, then the whole
derivation is based on actions at a distance.
You write: "I've read the original works by both Einstein and Darwin."
That must be an exageration. You probably have, as I have, read some
texts of them (at least in the case of Einstein). Do you know how many
works Einstein has published and how difficult some of them are to
understand? I have for instance the first two volumes of the 'Collected
Papers of A.E' which contain all his 1905 papers, and several other
books with texts of him. I have studied parts of the relativity paper,
parts of his papers on quanta and I have studied very carefully several
texts concerning EPR and epistemology. Most pages of my German
homepage deal with physics, especially with actions at a distance,
EPR and relativity.
Best regards
Wolfgang
Darwinism refuted by adverse selection experiments (03-Mar-99)
Hello Sverker,
It's interesting to debate with you!
You ask me whether I have read Darwin. I bought a German
translation of the 'Origin of Species' some twenty years ago,
and sometimes I have read in it. The book is quite interesting
and informative and shows that orginal Darwinism is much
sounder in several respects than reductionist neo-Darwinism.
Original Darwinism is an elegant theory. There are even elements
of Lamarckism (also advocated by Erasmus Darwin, whose
reincarnation Charles probably was) in it. The theory makes clear
predictions, also in the case of adverse selection of instinctive
behaviour. But there is a lot of empirical evidence making
necessary many ad hoc hypotheses to save the theory.
The psychon theory makes not only clearer predictions than
Darwinism but also much more quantitative predictions.
Therefore more empirical facts or situations are conceivable
which, if existent, would falsify the theory. For example, the
theory is refuted if the demographic predictions of UN become
reality.
see: http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/evidence.html#demography
You explain that normal (wild-type) animals have been optimized
by natural selection for easy breeding and that this original
optimization is sometimes lost when we breed the animals for rare
qualities. In this context it is interesting to quote Darwin:
"Especially, one must not overlook that long continuous
domestication usually tends to remove infertility, and therefore
cannot cause this property."
(Last paragraph of chapter 9, translated back by me)
My summary of your explanation: genes for rare properties are
somehow connected with genes for low fertility.
Normally, animals are bred for more than one single property. So
it should be possible to breed animals for high fertility and one rare
property.
Dominance inversion is generally accepted (Lexikon der Biochemie
und Molekularbiologie, Herder, 1991, --> Dominanz). It is explained
by the effect of other genes, by dominance modifiers and by
environmental factors. I also have read (I don't remember where)
that one reason why cloning is desired is the fact, that in many cases
animal properties which have been created by biotechnological
means are not transmitted to the offspring, contrary to expectations.
You are right in assuming that predictions of the psychon theory
depend on the population size. The psychons for common properties
are also limited, that's why no species can grow in number beyond an
upper limit (in the short term). I have explained this very carefully in
the demographic saturation theory. Here its last part:
"The saturation thesis is relevant not only to humans but to all
organisms. It can hardly be denied that many animal populations
remain rather constant in size without extreme Malthusian
struggles for survival. There are also limits on animal breeding
and plant cultivation.
There is even a saturation for pathogens like bacteria and viruses.
A pathogen of a local epidemic cannot be a threat to mankind,
nor can genetically engineered pathogens.
New methods to fight pests become possible: On the one hand
the pests are fighted where they are harmful, and on the other
hand they are breeded to saturation in places where they don't
do any harm."
( http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/demography.html )
That species are difficult to reproduce in captivity, I explain by
'environment continuity'. The probability that the soul of an animal
who has never lived in captivity is born in captivity is very low. But
after having wiped out the wild populations of a species, it should
be much easier to reproduce animals in captivity. According to the
psychon theory, it is more probable that animals which have spent
a whole life in captivity are reborn in captivity. So it shoud now be
easier to breed some animals in zoos than in the beginning of zoos.
Maybe it could even be possible in such a way to test directly or
statistically the thesis that the death of an animal leads to a new
birth.
'Domestic dogs descended from wolves' sounds similar to 'men
descended from chimpanzees'. But if the common ancestor of
both lived 135,000 years (or more, as I assume) ago and considering
the "extreme phenotypic diversity of dogs, even during the early
stages of domestication" (wayne1.htm), then conscious selective
breeding probably was not involved in creating this diversity. Anyway,
I think that an even greater diversity would have been possible by
conscious selective breeding.
>> A selection scenario is always possible if one considers only one
>> single characteristic such as nails. But there are hundreds of
>> characteristics of humans which are more important than nails.
>> For macroevolution to work many enzyme types, many cell types
>> and other structures must evolve at the same time together with
>> behaviour patterns. Because it is generally accepted that negative
>> mutations are more likely than positive ones, the probability of your
>> selection scenario is so low that we must exclude it.
> Now you're beginning to sound like the standard creationist
> argument from personal incredulity: "I can't figure out how this
> could have evolved through natural selection, so it must have
> been God/psychons!"
Do you take here 'natural selection' as a synonym for 'explanation of
evolution by natural means'? Don't forget: one of the first consequent
naturalists was Baruch Spinoza, who explained the world in a
panpsychist and panmaterialist way: space or matter is one aspect
of the world (or of God) and thinking or consciousness a second.
Einstein for instance strongly appreciated the philosophy of Spinoza.
He even acknowledged an influence on his concept of quanta.
In any case, creationists are much more right with respect to
probability of life within Darwinism than modern Darwinists. If
neo-Darwinism were correct, then at least now there would be a
steady decay of the genetic basis of mankind. The reference you
indicated has no concrete information at all about the real problems.
I would be interested very much in an 'official' online text defending
orthodoxy from probablistic attacks. It is not enough to believe that
a problem has been resolved by others, one should verify it oneself!
>> But these criticisms are not justified, because Agar has confirmed
>> the results of McDougall. That even Agar's control line became
>> progressively better in learning the task (this fact has remained
>> unexplained until today) is very strong evidence for my theory.
> "this fact has remained unexplained until today" References to
> recent literature, please, where it is acknowledged as
> unexplained.
A fact being unexplained depends on the inexistence of a sound
explanation and not on an official acknowledgement!
Already Darwin has given a strong argument against material
Lamarckism: the evolution of infertile castes of social insects.
(This is similar to the case of normal cells in a multicellular organism).
The corresponding part of chapter 8 is revealing in several respects
(for instance it shows Darwin's rhetorical power). Darwin admits
that social insects constitute a big, even the biggest problem for
his theory. Then he writes that he would never had dared to predict
social insects from his theory and to think that natural selection
could work so efficiently. He concludes that he has discussed in
detail these insects in order to prove the power of natural selection.
The evolution of social insects and adapitve evolution of all cells of
multicellular organisms are in agreement with the psychon theory,
because the essential part of the information is stored in the
psychons and not in the genes.
My physics is based on Kepler's physics at least insofar as Kepler
assumed instantanous effects. Kepler invoked physical laws in
order to explain the planetary system and panpsychism in order
to explain life. That "the panpsychic stuff was dropped" depended
rather on scientific power politics than on science itself.
You write that frequency can be measured to a much higher
precision than for example length. As far as I know this is possible
only in special cases depending on interference and therefore on
special proportions between measuring and measured frequencies.
So nothing more is measured than the validity of such special
proportions.
>> Electrostatic attraction cannot even be explained qualitatively in this
>> way because under momentum conservation two bodies can only
>> drift apart by exchanging photons, and momentum conservation
>> of photons has been experimentally confirmed!
> It's not that simple. If it were, don't you think
> somebody would have noticed by now?
That's really an interesting answer!
There are physical theories with no predictive value at all. The
explanation of the simple Coulomb law by obscure mathematical
formulas in QED is a good example. Photons as postulated by
Einstein are concrete, measurable things with frequency, energy
and momentum. Can you tell me how much photons of what kind
are active in a concrete situation of electrostatic attraction?
> Careful with the epistemology here - do not confuse the
> maths with the physics. Incompressible stuff leads to infinite
> speeds, yes, and would violate Einstein. So please give me
> an example of an actual physical material that is perfectly
> incompressible.
I certainly do neither confuse maths with physics nor logical
reasoning with empirical facts. The question whether there is
an actual physical material that is perfectly incompressible has
nothing to do with the derivation of e.m. waves from Maxwell's
equations. These equations are idealizations.
> If we go back to Maxwell, and the integral formulation of his
> equations: If you magically add or remove charges
> in the middle of a volume, you instantaneously change the
> flux integral over the surface of that volume, yes.
> But if you physically move the charges into the volume, at
> finite (below-c) speeds, no instantanous
> effects at a distance are produced.
If the effects are not instantanous, then the Gauss integral
theorem and therefore the first Maxwell equation is invalidated!
And I don't see why a direct appearence of charges (also in the
case when the charges are produced by separating electrons from
atoms?) in the middle of the volume should instantanously influence
the surface of the volume, whereas the introduction of a charge
from outside would not.
Cheers
Wolfgang
----------------------------
Appendix
Heinrich Hertz, Gesammelte Werke, Band 2, Leibzig, 1894:
'Einleitende Übersicht'
Seite 8:
"Ebenso schnell gelang es, die durch den Draht und die durch die Luft
fortgeleitete Wirkung zur Interferenz zu bringen und also ihre Phase zu
vergleichen. Besassen nun beide Wirkungen eine endliche und die gleiche
Geschwindigkeit, wie ich erwartete, so mussten sie in allen Entfernungen mit
gleicher Phase interferieren. ... Als ich nun aber die Apparate sorgfältig
aufgestellt hatte und den Versuch ausführte, fand ich die Phase der
Interferenz deutlich verschieden in verschiedenen Entfernungen und zwar etwa
in solcher Abwechslung, wie es einer unendlichen Ausbreitungsgeschwindigkeit
entsprochen hätte. Entmutigt brach ich den Versuch ab."
'Über die Ausbreitungsgeschindigkeit elektrodynamischer Wirkungen'
Seite 118:
"Die Gesamtkraft lässt sich in den elektrostatischen und elektrodynamischen
Teil zerlegen; es unterliegt keinem Zweifel, dass in der Nähe der erstere,
in der Ferne der letztere Teil überwiegt und die Richtung der Gesamtkraft
angibt."
Seite 127:
"Zweitens bemerken wir, dass die Verschiebung der Phase schneller erfolgt in
der Nähe des Ursprungs, als in der Entfernung von demselben. Alle Zeilen
zeigen dies übereinstimmend. Eine Veränderlichkeit der
Fortpflanzungsgeschwindigkeit ist nicht wahrscheinlich. Wir schieben
vielmehr mit gutem Grunde diese Erscheinung auf den Umstand, dass wir die
Gesamtkraft benutzen, welche sich in elektrostatische und elektrodynamische
Kraft trennen lässt. Schon die Theorie hat wahrscheinlich gemacht, dass
erstere, welche in der Nähe der primären Schwingung überwiegt, sich
schneller ausbreitet als letztere, welche in der Entfernung fast allein zur
Geltung kommt."
Seite 129:
"Die Interferenz wechselt nicht nach je 2.8 m ihr Vorzeichen. Also breiten
sich die elektrodynamischen Wirkungen nicht mit unendlicher Geschwindigkeit
aus."
Seite 130:
"Da in der Nähe der primären Schwingung die Interferenzen allerdings nach je
2.8 m ihr Zeichen wechselt, so möchte man schliessen, dass sich die hier
vorzugsweise wirkende elektrostatische Kraft mit unendlicher Geschwindigkeit
ausbreitet."
David Foster defended against dogmatic attacks (06-Mar-99)
In a today's message Richard Carrier has drawn attention to
his critique of David Foster's "The Philosophical Scientists".
http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/foster0.html
Here some representative quotations:
"I read it, and was so astonished at the many and bizarre
errors, as well as some astonishing gaps in basic scientific
knowledge, that I was amazed that Foster could be accorded
any respect at all."
"Although there are a few scientific mistakes that are so
appalling as to raise a roar of laughter even among educated
laymen, even more ridiculous is the logic of Foster's arguments,
and how his persistent and shameless logic-chopping thoroughly
refutes itself."
"I have surveyed most of the idiocy of Foster's book."
"Foster, like most creation scientists, is lazy."
Maybe somebody really understanding the concerning problems
would have the right to behave in such an arrogant way as R. C.
Carrier does!
Here another quotation:
"I think it is safe to say that any time you hear someone waving
around statistics about the improbability of life, you can rest
assured that they know absolutely nothing about the matter
at all. Their statistics are going to be all but worthless, because
they cannot know what they really need to know in order to
make such calculations."
The figures of probability calculated by David Forster are certainly
not too low but much to high. Within the reductionist neo-Darwinian
framework one must not take it for granted that "amino acids
naturally chain", can take a stable form and even are able to carry
out several complex tasks. It is absurd to assume that physical
laws such as described by quantum mechanics result in such a
behaviour of molecules.
For macro-evolution to work for animals, many different celltypes
(and other structures) must evolve at the same time. One positive
mutation for one celltype (or one structure) should be paralleled
by many negative mutations for others. So, if fatal mutations are
more likely to appear than beneficial (as assumed by Carrier),
there should be much more mutations leading to the death of
embryos and of babies. (Only a small part of the genome is already
used at conception time.)
What would be the effect of random changes in chess programs
or robots?
Carrier is proud of his atheism. However, he acts in a similar
(maybe even worse) way as the persons he criticizes. He
believes in current science, but he is not aware that the current
reductionist world view is in some respect also a religion.
Whereas some hundred years ago, the 'intelectual elite' of
European countries was primarily engaged in theology, today this
elite is engaged in science. Why were the theologians of this
past 'intellectual elite' so convinced of things that seem absurd
to us? Certainly not because they had a complete understanding.
The primary reason is that they had confidence in the whole
system and relied on authority and other theologians. A typical
reasoning could have been: "Why should be wrong what the
most intelligent and respected persons of our time say and prove
to be right?"
In some respect Carrier's philosophy is worse than Foster's or
the one of creationists: reductionist neo-Darwinism can be
refuted by logical reasoning alone, whereas the belief in God
cannot!
I have not read Foster's book, I primarily base my judgements of
the book on Carrier's critique. I don't appreciate the explanation
of evolution given by Foster, but I appreciate Foster's statistical
arguments, they are certainly much better than Carrier tries to
give the impression.
There are several theories of official scientists which seem to me
at least as strange as some of Foster's ideas. Why doesn't Carrier
attack the errors of orthodoxy?
Wolfgang
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
(Pages more scientific and less dogmatic than Carrier's)
David Foster defended against dogmatic attacks (08-Mar-99)
Hello Ray!
>> In some respect Carrier's philosophy is worse than Foster's or
>> the one of creationists: reductionist neo-Darwinism can be
>> refuted by logical reasoning alone, whereas the belief in God
>> cannot!
> "Belief in God" cannot be refuted only because believers are
> unable to provide a coherent and consistent description of
> their God. This lack of coherence allows the believers to
> change their beliefs when necessary to maintain them.
If somebody believes that God created the Earth 6000 years ago,
we have no possibility to prove the contrary (and maybe even all
could be possible). But we can prove the 7 times 7 is not 50.
> Please provide some characteristics of your God and I will
> gladly refute it.
The only god I'm able to believe in, is a pantheist god similar to
the god-world-nature of Baruch Spinoza. Maybe it also makes
sense to call 'god' all the principles of nature which cannot be
explained by reductionist causal laws.
Wolfgang
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
Euroview07 Galileo at last. (10-Mar-99)
> It doesn't alter the point I was making, that Galileo died without
> proving, or "demonstrating" the Copernican picture.
One must not forget that Johannes Kepler had found and published his famous
three laws before Galilei wrote his famous works. Galilei's behaviour
towards Kepler was no better than the behaviour of some clergymen towards
Galilei!
Kepler's laws, based on strong empirical evidence, are completely absurd in
a geocentric (e.g. Brahe-style) framework.
Wolfgang
Further posts to talk.origins:
Phillip E. Johnson now on the WWCW (on probability and abiogenesis)
Aids: have we been misled?