The end of a physics world view

No entailing laws, but enablement in the evolution of the biosphere  (2012)

Excerpt 1: “…the evolution of life marks the end of a physics world view of law entailed dynamics.

Excerpt 2: “…we discuss the novel notion of “enablement”. This will restrict causal analyses to differential cases (a difference that causes a difference). Mutations or other causal differences will allow us to stress that “non conservation principles” are at the core of evolution, in contrast to physical dynamics….”

My comment: “No entailing laws…” abandons the laws of physics required to organize hydrogen bonds in the proteins and genomes of species from microbes to man that enable the self-organization. Protein-dependent self-organization processes are central to the biology of form/morphogenesis. Without physics, genetically predisposed differences in morphogenesis that result in different phenotypes “just happen.”  A difference that causes a difference is one way to say that random mutations (i.e., differences) cause the different genetically predisposed phenotypes of animals to evolve. The authors also assert that conserved molecular mechanisms are largely irrelevant features of evolution. The conserved molecular mechanisms are physically determined (e.g., by the laws of physics).

Physical Determinants in the Emergence and Inheritance of Multicellular Form  (2013)

Excerpt 1: “…the physics of complex materials and self-organizing processes should be made central to the biology of form.”

Excerpt 2: “…genes acting in concert with physics can generate and transform morphology in a heritable fashion.”

My comment: Two excerpts from each of these two articles represent the clash between mutations theory and biological facts. In the 2012 article, the obvious requirements for the pattern of self-organization of the genome in all species no longer requires mutation-initiated natural selection. The idea that “random mutations are the substrate on which directional natural selection acts” is removed. Thus, mutation-driven evolution is simplified. Mutations  somehow cause evolution outside the context of the laws of physics, which would require that something was naturally selected to enable phenotypic changes in species.

If not for the 2013 article, you could simply accept the idea that the laws of physics do not apply to the evolution of life and species diversity, which just happens without natural selection. You could  make up any theory you wish.

That is what people have already been doing for many years while they avoided this biological fact “…the physics of complex materials and self-organizing processes should be made central to the biology of form.” For example, if you cannot explain the morphogenesis of sex differences and how they are maintained in every species that reproduces sexually, you can still arrive at the acceptance of snake predation as the driving force behind the adaptive evolution of the human brain. However, if you involve what is currently known about the physical determinants of different life forms, you would soon conclude that morphogenesis of different physical features is nutrient-dependent. The laws of physics demand that something be selected for physical changes to occur in species. And clearly, morphogenesis is nutrient-dependent. Without food, organisms do not morphologically mature or evolve to  become new species. Thus, without the laws of physics, mutations theory is an evolutionary dead end.

Nutrients are metabolized to species-specific pheromones that control the physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to man. If you consider what is currently known about how the morphogenesis of different physical features in different species is maintained via reproduction, you must conclude that the metabolism of nutrients to species-specific pheromones enables the physical determinants of controlled nutrient-dependent thermodynamics and pheromone-controlled organism-level thermoregulation in species from microbes to man.

What’s unfortunate is how long it takes for some people to realize a paradigm shift has occurred. What is more unfortunate is how long others continue to cling to their dogma. What’s fortunate is that some people are still willing to attempt to lead the way to the inevitable acceptance of the new paradigm, while some academics attempt to thwart the dissemination of information that is required for scientific progress.  Jay Feierman is one of those people. He refused to post my comment on the two articles above to the yahoo group that he moderates for the International Society for Human Ethology. Like many of the other posts he has rejected, Feierman claimed that the information above was redundant. He wrote: “Redundant. You’ve said something very similar or the same dozens of times in the past. One does not convince someone by just repeating the same thing over and over again. It is boring for others on the group to read something said before many times.”

Feierman has repeatedly made the claim that “random mutations are the substrate upon which directional natural selection acts“. Others have consistently supported that claim.   Now that natural selection has been removed from the context of random mutations theory, that theory and the abandonment of physics in attempts to continue touting it, must be discussed somewhere. But academics are everywhere. They’ve accepted a ridiculous theory with no experimental evidence to support it. And now, some of them are abandoning the laws of physics to continue touting their theory.  Clearly, we live in interesting times.

Author: James Kohl

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.