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 have adopted the mindset of evolutionary biologists in order to publish in their journals. I know how to create and evaluate the kinds of arguments that fit into mainstream evolutionary thinking. If I go public with statements that evolution is a crock, then it will be hard for me to get my research published.
I have published on this website my doubts about the ability of chemistry and physics to explain the origin of life. This is less controversial, because Darwin said as much. https://mitteldorf.substack.com/p/the-origin-of-life
Classical Darwinian theory accounts for all of evolution in terms of random mutations and natural selection. Is this plausible? We would like to make a quantitative estimate of the likelihood that certain traits could appear via this process, but we don't have enough parameters nailed down to make this calculation. Most scientists take it on faith that this MUST be plausible because to do otherwise would be to invoke a Creator, and most scientists take it on faith that there is no Creator manipulating the events of our world.
So, to say that someone is "dumber than a rock" for questioning evolution is, to coin a phrase, "dumber than a rock". There are legitimate grounds for doubt, and different people may make different judgments based on the fundamentals of their worldviews.
I just listened to what Tucker claims in his Rogan interview, and I want to distance myself from that. "No evidence" is not a very thoughtful position, and it doesn't come from an informed place.
"There's no evidence that people evolved from a singke-celled amoeba."
I fully agree with that statement, but I'm a relative layman. But back it up another step, and just look at the complexity of a single cell and DNA, which was not even known about until after Darwin published "Evolution..."
There's an animation done at Harvard called "The Inner Life of The Cell" on YT that shows the inner workings to be like a city with nano-machines running about carrying out millions of processes that make the cell function. It's mind blowing and if accurate, I'd say completely and single handedly debunks the idea of inorganic materials randomly organizing to spontaneously create a living organism.
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. :)
Yes, I knew Lynn Margulis. Her son co-authored my book on aging.
You seem to be saying two opposite things, "I was skeptical..." and "I have a hard time imagining..." The first suggests to me that you don't believe the ev-bio community could be so narrow-minded as to think that the selfish gene was the be-all and end-all of natural selection. The second suggests to me that you, yourself believe that the selfish gene is the be-all and end-all of natural selection.
I'll take that as a 'no', lol - you don't see a middle ground. I have to be on one side or the other. I was writing from what I see as a middle ground though, that selection happens at the level of the gene, but this does not necessarily lead to selfishness. Fitness, by and large, is achieved through cooperation. Why can't we have things like prudent predation and robust ecosystems via genes achieving their self-interests symbiotically, as team players?
I suspect anthropomorphizing genes as selfish, even if natural selection operates on that level, doesn't help the pursuit of truth. I suspect also that time-scale matters. Are rocky mountain locusts a success or a failure? Lay people think of natural selection as survival of the fittest. After my standard undergraduate education in the matter, I thought it should really be fecundity of the fittest. Now I think that Really long-term, survival is most important. The locusts were a flash in the pan - brilliant, but now gone. That's what happens when you get selfish. Perhaps the locusts had many predecessors go the same route. Perhaps Homo sapiens will be next to do so.
Where did you publish your mathematical models demonstrating selfish genes are incompatible with stable ecosystems? Was it in Aging is a Group-Selected Adaptation?
"Why can't we have things like prudent predation and robust ecosystems via genes achieving their self-interests symbiotically, as team players?"
Yes, this is one way of looking at what happens in evolution. It is not consistent with Fisher's mathematics, even as extended by Price. To model the effects of cooperation and symbiosis and "team playing" requires ecological thinking.
Fisher's mathematics is predictive -- and the predictions fail. Eco/evo computer modeling is too complex to be predictive, but we can try to reproduce the world we see, and if we are successful then we can claim plausibly that we may have modeled the most important dynamics correctly.
"Where did you publish your mathematical models demonstrating selfish genes are incompatible with stable ecosystems? Was it in Aging is a Group-Selected Adaptation?"
That book is a good summary of everything I've done on the subject, but in fact my first computer models were 10 years earlier.
Good grief, are people still hung-up on Fisher? What scientific work is going to last a century without anyone finding something wrong with it? If the predictions fail we have to move on. We can still look back on it as a seminal work that advanced the field.
I keep an open mind, but that's where I stand: gene-level selection with much cooperation and symbiosis. I just read your abstract, and that seems to be your position too. At your mutable locus, alleles that cause aging win out over others that don't. Maybe it happens in a somewhat wacky fashion. But I guess that's part of why aging is so interesting. I'll give the full paper a read, but I don't see gene pools competing with one another in the abstract, i.e. no group selection.
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?
Look up R. A. Fisher, who invented most of modern statistical methodology on the way to creating the gene-centered view of evolution. His whole motivation for getting into the field was eugenics. He was concerned that the poor people were having more children than the rich people, and it goes without saying that the reason poor people are poor is that they lack the gene for intelligence.
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.
"You did not explain the function of ageing in species who are part of an ecosystem (habitat, biotope)."
I've written two books and a dozen or so journal articles about this. The short answer is that aging offers many advantages to the community that might compensate for its disadvantage to the individual. Once you realize that selfish genes lead to ecosystem collapse, then any of these might become viable. My favorite is that there is a direct benefit for avoiding population overshoot. Some others:
+ Maintaining population diversity, which has multiple long-term benefits
I have not had enough time to read all books written yet... Sorry.
Did you write about the idea i pointed at, that cults, based on word-power, (like the 'Dollar'), which brought us billionaires that dominate humanity by concepts, not genetics, which do NOT die, like the Dictators Charles Chaplin mentioned ?
There is an evolution on Religions and Ideologies, and recently about the concept of money, but i do not see the cults around those groups die, i only see the concept of power by 'money' gathering remain. And as long that doesn't die, we are running full speed towards a Nuclear Armageddon i fear.
It's natural to think about aging in terms of humans -- why do WE age? But aging is more than a billion years old. Yeast cells age. Roundworms age. There's even some form of aging in bacteria. So we need an explanation that doesn't involve sociology.
Nevertheless, your point is on target with respect to the possible downside of increased longevity in today's world.
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!
Hi, Dianne - The part about evolution of aging and ecosystems being tied together is in my book "Cracking the Aging Code". https://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Aging-Code-Science-Growing/dp/1250061709/
I can't think of a book that has all the physics stuff, but the part about physics being fine-tuned for life is in Paul Davies,
The Goldilocks Enigma" https://www.amazon.com/Goldilocks-Enigma-Universe-Just-Right-ebook/dp/B0047O2BBQ/
The parts about quantum mechanics are explored in two of my Substack posts:
https://mitteldorf.substack.com/p/proof-we-are-not-living-in-a-simulation
https://mitteldorf.substack.com/p/schroodingers-cat-and-the-secret
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 have adopted the mindset of evolutionary biologists in order to publish in their journals. I know how to create and evaluate the kinds of arguments that fit into mainstream evolutionary thinking. If I go public with statements that evolution is a crock, then it will be hard for me to get my research published.
I have published on this website my doubts about the ability of chemistry and physics to explain the origin of life. This is less controversial, because Darwin said as much. https://mitteldorf.substack.com/p/the-origin-of-life
Classical Darwinian theory accounts for all of evolution in terms of random mutations and natural selection. Is this plausible? We would like to make a quantitative estimate of the likelihood that certain traits could appear via this process, but we don't have enough parameters nailed down to make this calculation. Most scientists take it on faith that this MUST be plausible because to do otherwise would be to invoke a Creator, and most scientists take it on faith that there is no Creator manipulating the events of our world.
So, to say that someone is "dumber than a rock" for questioning evolution is, to coin a phrase, "dumber than a rock". There are legitimate grounds for doubt, and different people may make different judgments based on the fundamentals of their worldviews.
I just listened to what Tucker claims in his Rogan interview, and I want to distance myself from that. "No evidence" is not a very thoughtful position, and it doesn't come from an informed place.
"There's no evidence that people evolved from a singke-celled amoeba."
I fully agree with that statement, but I'm a relative layman. But back it up another step, and just look at the complexity of a single cell and DNA, which was not even known about until after Darwin published "Evolution..."
There's an animation done at Harvard called "The Inner Life of The Cell" on YT that shows the inner workings to be like a city with nano-machines running about carrying out millions of processes that make the cell function. It's mind blowing and if accurate, I'd say completely and single handedly debunks the idea of inorganic materials randomly organizing to spontaneously create a living organism.
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. :)
Fred -
Yes, I knew Lynn Margulis. Her son co-authored my book on aging.
You seem to be saying two opposite things, "I was skeptical..." and "I have a hard time imagining..." The first suggests to me that you don't believe the ev-bio community could be so narrow-minded as to think that the selfish gene was the be-all and end-all of natural selection. The second suggests to me that you, yourself believe that the selfish gene is the be-all and end-all of natural selection.
Please clarify...
I'll take that as a 'no', lol - you don't see a middle ground. I have to be on one side or the other. I was writing from what I see as a middle ground though, that selection happens at the level of the gene, but this does not necessarily lead to selfishness. Fitness, by and large, is achieved through cooperation. Why can't we have things like prudent predation and robust ecosystems via genes achieving their self-interests symbiotically, as team players?
I suspect anthropomorphizing genes as selfish, even if natural selection operates on that level, doesn't help the pursuit of truth. I suspect also that time-scale matters. Are rocky mountain locusts a success or a failure? Lay people think of natural selection as survival of the fittest. After my standard undergraduate education in the matter, I thought it should really be fecundity of the fittest. Now I think that Really long-term, survival is most important. The locusts were a flash in the pan - brilliant, but now gone. That's what happens when you get selfish. Perhaps the locusts had many predecessors go the same route. Perhaps Homo sapiens will be next to do so.
Where did you publish your mathematical models demonstrating selfish genes are incompatible with stable ecosystems? Was it in Aging is a Group-Selected Adaptation?
"Why can't we have things like prudent predation and robust ecosystems via genes achieving their self-interests symbiotically, as team players?"
Yes, this is one way of looking at what happens in evolution. It is not consistent with Fisher's mathematics, even as extended by Price. To model the effects of cooperation and symbiosis and "team playing" requires ecological thinking.
Fisher's mathematics is predictive -- and the predictions fail. Eco/evo computer modeling is too complex to be predictive, but we can try to reproduce the world we see, and if we are successful then we can claim plausibly that we may have modeled the most important dynamics correctly.
"Where did you publish your mathematical models demonstrating selfish genes are incompatible with stable ecosystems? Was it in Aging is a Group-Selected Adaptation?"
That book is a good summary of everything I've done on the subject, but in fact my first computer models were 10 years earlier.
https://www.evolutionary-ecology.com/abstracts/v08/1726.html
Good grief, are people still hung-up on Fisher? What scientific work is going to last a century without anyone finding something wrong with it? If the predictions fail we have to move on. We can still look back on it as a seminal work that advanced the field.
I keep an open mind, but that's where I stand: gene-level selection with much cooperation and symbiosis. I just read your abstract, and that seems to be your position too. At your mutable locus, alleles that cause aging win out over others that don't. Maybe it happens in a somewhat wacky fashion. But I guess that's part of why aging is so interesting. I'll give the full paper a read, but I don't see gene pools competing with one another in the abstract, i.e. no group selection.
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?
Look up R. A. Fisher, who invented most of modern statistical methodology on the way to creating the gene-centered view of evolution. His whole motivation for getting into the field was eugenics. He was concerned that the poor people were having more children than the rich people, and it goes without saying that the reason poor people are poor is that they lack the gene for intelligence.
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
"You did not explain the function of ageing in species who are part of an ecosystem (habitat, biotope)."
I've written two books and a dozen or so journal articles about this. The short answer is that aging offers many advantages to the community that might compensate for its disadvantage to the individual. Once you realize that selfish genes lead to ecosystem collapse, then any of these might become viable. My favorite is that there is a direct benefit for avoiding population overshoot. Some others:
+ Maintaining population diversity, which has multiple long-term benefits
+ Accelerating the pace of evolutionary change
+ Slowing the spread of pathogens
Thank you...
I have not had enough time to read all books written yet... Sorry.
Did you write about the idea i pointed at, that cults, based on word-power, (like the 'Dollar'), which brought us billionaires that dominate humanity by concepts, not genetics, which do NOT die, like the Dictators Charles Chaplin mentioned ?
There is an evolution on Religions and Ideologies, and recently about the concept of money, but i do not see the cults around those groups die, i only see the concept of power by 'money' gathering remain. And as long that doesn't die, we are running full speed towards a Nuclear Armageddon i fear.
->https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKHWymIXoAEPYEX?format=jpg
Sander
It's natural to think about aging in terms of humans -- why do WE age? But aging is more than a billion years old. Yeast cells age. Roundworms age. There's even some form of aging in bacteria. So we need an explanation that doesn't involve sociology.
Nevertheless, your point is on target with respect to the possible downside of increased longevity in today's world.
U inverse cities ???