I endorse what you've written here. A fellow-traveler, Neil Theise, wrote Notes on Complexity. His first 100 pages are a lay-person's guide to the physics and I was profoundly affected by his analysis, which parallels yours! It was my nighttime read, and I literally sat up in bed with my mouth opened in awe of the connections made. You've taken it a step further and I hope this is the basis for a book, which I would buy, despite my aversion to consumption and late-stage capitalism!
"There's no evidence that people evolved from a singke-celled amoeba."
Where would you rate that on the truth scale, as he and holders of this opinion are being called dumber than a rock.
Does the Cambrian explore alone falsify the theory of evolution? Do you share Weinstein's opinion that people who discount evolution simply don't understand it?
In short, and I'm just interested in your opinion as I think you are one of the few who can and likely has attempted to address this issue dispassionately.
I imagine you're familiar with the work of Lynn Margulis. She's the one who came up with the notion that all eukaryotic cells are symbioses. Mitochondria and chloroplasts were bacteria that long ago entered into historical partnerships. In general she promoted the idea that cooperation was much more important in nature and evolutionary history than competition. Her hypothesis about the organelles was initially met with derision. I was under the impression that its eventual acceptance made the scientific community friendlier to her broader ideas about symbiosis. So I was skeptical when you wrote: "According to standard evolutionary theory, there is no real altruism, no cooperation in nature." Perhaps I was mistaken though. Is there a middle ground there, between you on one hand - Williams, Smith, and Dawkins on the other? Perhaps we could tone down the language from "selfish gene" to "self-interested gene"; genes which recognize their interests in cooperation. Given the way reproduction occurs, with the very transient nature of gene pools and even individual genomes, I have a hard time imagining selection as happening on a level broader than the gene. Though I suppose I could try harder. :)
There is an abundance of fascinating, educative, thought-provoking, intriguing and so forth information here. For whatever reason; this is my favorite capture ‘The universe is a response to life’s longing for a home’. Josh-still another Tour de force! (I’m still behind on a couple posts prior; I am looking forward to catching up.
Excellent, profound and spot-on. Interesting that the 'selfish gene' theory was pushed by narcissistic, egotistical biologists. Maybe what they saw was just a reflection of themselves?
It is like having walked in a desert for ages and then meeting in that all-encompassing emptiness someone who is someone, looking around in wonder and astonishment.
OK, my cent:
You did not explain the function of ageing in species who are part of an ecosystem (habitat, biotope).
Of course this is to protect both the species and its ecosystem against the tendency of an individual of a species or even a group of individuals hegemonizing the ecosystem and preventing natural selection (improvement) to continue. Habitats, Biotopes and Ecosystems can collapse if they are not protected against that awful path to extinction.
Why did i pick out this tiny piece ?
We as Homo sapiens have created a dominant species on the biotope of Earth, where evolution is guided without (much) genes and in stead culture/language as carrier of the changes that determine which groups survive. The problem is, that culture, language and religion do not DIE.
Quote by Charles Chaplin: "Dictators Die, and the Power they Took from the People, will return to the people. And so long as MEN Die, Liberty will never Perish..."
So now we are dominated by a "Cult" of powerful individuals that does not DIE, unlike genes, because they pass on their deadly cult in words, religions and rituals and not in genes.
I hope i did introduce a usable thought here.
I wish you health and a long life to go on as you do.
I endorse what you've written here. A fellow-traveler, Neil Theise, wrote Notes on Complexity. His first 100 pages are a lay-person's guide to the physics and I was profoundly affected by his analysis, which parallels yours! It was my nighttime read, and I literally sat up in bed with my mouth opened in awe of the connections made. You've taken it a step further and I hope this is the basis for a book, which I would buy, despite my aversion to consumption and late-stage capitalism!
Best earth day essay ever. Thanks.
Love that you read your articles!
What's your take on the conversation springing from Tucker Carlson's recent appearance in Joe Rogan?
https://x.com/waitbutwhy/status/1782061811086287182
"There's no evidence that people evolved from a singke-celled amoeba."
Where would you rate that on the truth scale, as he and holders of this opinion are being called dumber than a rock.
Does the Cambrian explore alone falsify the theory of evolution? Do you share Weinstein's opinion that people who discount evolution simply don't understand it?
In short, and I'm just interested in your opinion as I think you are one of the few who can and likely has attempted to address this issue dispassionately.
I imagine you're familiar with the work of Lynn Margulis. She's the one who came up with the notion that all eukaryotic cells are symbioses. Mitochondria and chloroplasts were bacteria that long ago entered into historical partnerships. In general she promoted the idea that cooperation was much more important in nature and evolutionary history than competition. Her hypothesis about the organelles was initially met with derision. I was under the impression that its eventual acceptance made the scientific community friendlier to her broader ideas about symbiosis. So I was skeptical when you wrote: "According to standard evolutionary theory, there is no real altruism, no cooperation in nature." Perhaps I was mistaken though. Is there a middle ground there, between you on one hand - Williams, Smith, and Dawkins on the other? Perhaps we could tone down the language from "selfish gene" to "self-interested gene"; genes which recognize their interests in cooperation. Given the way reproduction occurs, with the very transient nature of gene pools and even individual genomes, I have a hard time imagining selection as happening on a level broader than the gene. Though I suppose I could try harder. :)
Thank you for this depth and breadth of inquiry, Josh.
Within the Tao-of-Physics, you are a Dancing-Wu-Li-Master.
Last stop on the Apex-Predator-Savannah-Ecosystem line, Next Stop, Global-Stewardship (but the tracks still need to be laid).
:-/
I have excerpted this piece into the opening of today's blog post. Lots more work to go...
There is an abundance of fascinating, educative, thought-provoking, intriguing and so forth information here. For whatever reason; this is my favorite capture ‘The universe is a response to life’s longing for a home’. Josh-still another Tour de force! (I’m still behind on a couple posts prior; I am looking forward to catching up.
Excellent, profound and spot-on. Interesting that the 'selfish gene' theory was pushed by narcissistic, egotistical biologists. Maybe what they saw was just a reflection of themselves?
Hullo there...
It is like having walked in a desert for ages and then meeting in that all-encompassing emptiness someone who is someone, looking around in wonder and astonishment.
OK, my cent:
You did not explain the function of ageing in species who are part of an ecosystem (habitat, biotope).
Of course this is to protect both the species and its ecosystem against the tendency of an individual of a species or even a group of individuals hegemonizing the ecosystem and preventing natural selection (improvement) to continue. Habitats, Biotopes and Ecosystems can collapse if they are not protected against that awful path to extinction.
Why did i pick out this tiny piece ?
We as Homo sapiens have created a dominant species on the biotope of Earth, where evolution is guided without (much) genes and in stead culture/language as carrier of the changes that determine which groups survive. The problem is, that culture, language and religion do not DIE.
->https://www.occupyschagen.nl/Div/Greatest%20Speech.jpg
Quote by Charles Chaplin: "Dictators Die, and the Power they Took from the People, will return to the people. And so long as MEN Die, Liberty will never Perish..."
So now we are dominated by a "Cult" of powerful individuals that does not DIE, unlike genes, because they pass on their deadly cult in words, religions and rituals and not in genes.
I hope i did introduce a usable thought here.
I wish you health and a long life to go on as you do.
Sander
U inverse cities ???