Do we need a new theory of evolution?
Don’t know! But history can tell us a lot about the Theory of Evolution. Just as with Galileo and the Pope there is a clash between science and faith. The main difference is that astronomy is simpler than biology or maybe our understanding of astronomy is greater than our understanding of biology. In the absence of proven facts the discussion becomes a clash of opinions that are supported more by status than by facts.
Why did Galileo delay the publication of his masterpiece? His wife went to church but he didn’t. The consensus seems to be that Darwin feared the wrath of the church.
From the article:
Behind the current battle over evolution lies a broken dream. In the early 20th century, many biologists longed for a unifying theory that would enable their field to join physics and chemistry in the club of austere, mechanistic sciences that stripped the universe down to a set of elemental rules. Without such a theory, they feared that biology would remain a bundle of fractious sub-fields, from zoology to biochemistry, in which answering any question might require input and argument from scores of warring specialists.
What the above says is that biologists have the same “physics envy” that classical economists have. They want the same clockwork simplicity except quantum theory has shown that physics has lots of complexity and uncertainty, and to top it off, observation changes the observed.
“If this were so, evolution would have hardly any meaning, and would not be going anywhere in particular,”
Why does nature have to have meaning?
Privately, he complained that anyone working outside the new evolutionary “party line” – that is, anyone who didn’t embrace the modern synthesis – was ostracised.
WOKISM isn’t new! Of course not. Burning heretics at the stake was a violent form of WOKISM. Settled science is WOKISM. And all of it is anti-science, the rule by the most vocal, the most charismatic, the most powerful.
The subject at hand is most definitively more about humans than about science. They might as well be discussing how many angels can dance of the head of a pin.
has his own ideas about the subject. The universe is built like a layer cake, just like the WWW is a layer cake. There is a physical network of wires, optical cables, servers and other hardware. Photons and electrons traverse this physical network but under some man made protocol. At the lowest level it is about transmitting ones and zeros but these are arranged under some man made protocol. So it goes until an idea in your head arrives in other people’s heads. Do we need a unified theory of idea swapping?
Recently I heard a theory about why we don’t understand quantum mechanics, ‘because we are too big.’ According to my layer cake model, life is a higher level built on a physical level, built of a quantum level with many possible intermediate levels. Each level has its own laws because each has its own nature and constitution. Why should humans act like electrons?
Humans are collections of cells ordered and operating under the guidance of software that resides in our DNA. Does the DNA control our thoughts or are thoughts an emerging property of the collection of cells. The latter is the more likely. Layer upon layer upon layer
Who could have invented such a complex schema?