Reincarnation as a trivial scientific fact

wogoga said:

I don't understand your reasoning. You had claimed that an alleged population decrease of the Giant Panda caused by low fertility is evidence against Giant Panda reincarnation. I answered that if such a population implosion had occurred in recent times, "then this actually would constitute strong evidence against my evolution-by-reincarnation theory".

This conclusion is based on the premise that no closely related species has been growing at the expense of the Giant Panda population in recent times. However, if not even the Red Panda is relatively closely related to the Giant Panda then my argument becomes even more straightforward, and you simply have to provide evidence for your original claim in order to seriously attack the psychon theory.

Click to expand...

Oh dear, you once again completely miss the point. The Giant Panda has no natural enemies, plentiful food, and no particularly closely related species. If your psychon theory is true then there is no reason for their numbers to dwindle at all - they should have a high fertility rate. But their numbers have been falling for a long time, and their fertility is still very low. This can, however be explained in evolutionary terms, because the Giant Panda moved from being a carnivore to being a herbivore, but it's gut hasn't yet evolved properly to draw enough energy from its chosen food.

The question of the relatedness between the Giant and the Red Panda is very interesting. Two quotes from Wikipedia:

"For many decades the precise taxonomic classification of the panda was under debate as both the giant panda and the distantly related red panda share characteristics of both bears and raccoons."

"The red panda and the giant panda, although completely different in appearance, share several features. They both live in the same habitat, they both live on a similar bamboo diet and they both share a unique enlarged bone called the pseudo thumb, which allows them to grip the bamboo shoots they eat."​

If the conclusion of the paper mentioned by you is correct and both Panda species are only very distantly related from the viewpoint of genetics then this is an interesting case of convergent evolution.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Future research may be able to decide whether animal souls (of a soul-species) can lead to convergent evolution in lineages drifting genetically apart, by alternately incarnating in the different lines. In the concrete case of the Giant and the Red Panda, such an assumption would imply that at least some of the souls of the Red Panda lineage were born in the Giant Panda branch after their separation from a common ancestor, and the other way round.

Such a propensity of their ancestors for incarnating in genetically quite different species could maybe also help to explain the extremely low soul number of the Red Panda (a few thousand), which is a rather small animal with a weight of only 3-6 kg. For comparison: for every Red Panda soul more than one million human souls exist.

Click to expand...

And yet the Japanese can't get souls from the incredibly closely genetically related Europeans. Nope, if you're Japanese you have to have a Japanese soul.

Doesn't the mental gymnastics required to hold these two opposed ideas make your brain hurt?

As a possible scenario the following could have happened: Very difficult conditions, under which only a small number of the strongest and most capable individuals could survive and reproduce, lasted for a long period. Because at the same time the conditions were much better for another related species, the population size of this related species increased in the long run at the expense of the population (of the ancestors) of the Red Panda.

Click to expand...

Yep, when the facts don't agree with your idea, make up something convoluted that contradicts your previous position.

Independently of whether such a scenario is possible or not, it is a logical necessity for evolution-by-reincarnation that after a species has become extinct the souls are born within related species: the closer related such a destination species and the better its living conditions and reproduction, the higher is the probability of being born there; and the more distant this destination species from the extinct one, the more difficult it is for the soul of the extinct species to learn to survive to fertile age in the destination species.

Click to expand...

But neither the Red or Giant Panda are extinct, both live with no natural enemies and plentiful food. So where are their souls going?

And why, if a species dwindles in number due to environmental factors do their souls have to go to another species? Your entire argument about demographic saturation is that there's a limit on the number of human souls, but the population is higher than it has ever been and according to you has only just reached (or is near to reaching) saturation. So what were all those human souls doing until now? Were they inhabiting Gorillas and Chimpanzees? Have 3/4 of a billion Chinese souls appeared in the last century at the expense of great ape populations?

wollery said:

...

Click to expand...

"The Giant Panda has no natural enemies, plentiful food, and no particularly closely related species. If your psychon theory is true then there is no reason for their numbers to dwindle at all - they should have a high fertility rate."

We agree that the Giant Panda numbers should not decline, not from my point of view, and even less from a Darwinian point of view. Therefore I’ve put into question the reality of the alleged decline in Giant Panda populations and challenged you to provide evidence that it actually happened. Yet there seems to be counterevidence:


"But their numbers have been falling for a long time, and their fertility is still very low."

When did the Giant Panda numbers fall, and how long?

According to my psychon theory, it is quite plausible that the numbers could have fallen in times when survival conditions were quite adverse (for instance during or after major climate changes in the past), but it is very implausible that the numbers fell after the Giant Panda became a more and more protected species.

"This can, however be explained in evolutionary terms, because the Giant Panda moved from being a carnivore to being a herbivore, but its gut hasn't yet evolved properly to draw enough energy from its chosen food."

Explaining the low fertility of the Giant Panda by its change from being carnivore to herbivore is an excellent example of an ad-hoc-hypothesis, where a simple coincidence is taken for an explanation ("correlation instead of causation").

Or does any halfway plausible mechanism exist which could explain how the Giant Panda's inefficient gut affects its fertility? Without natural enemies, with plentiful food, and even fostered by humans, these animals are far from being undernourished. And their reproduction doesn't seem to consume all too much energy:

• Copulation time is short, ranging from thirty seconds to five minutes, but the male may mount repeatedly to ensure successful fertilization

If we further take into account

• The whole gestation period ranges from 83 to 163 days, with 135 days being the average
• Usually, the female panda gives birth to one or two panda cubs
• Growth is slow and pandas may not reach sexual maturity until five to seven years of age
• Giant Pandas can usually live to be 20-30 years old in captivity

then from the low actual fertility rate of the Giant Panda we must conclude that this species does not participate in Darwinian evolution: Rooted in Malthusianism, Darwinism is based on the premise that natural selection chooses the fittest, because otherwise, the earth could not hold the offspring of just a single pair.

According evolution-by-reincarnation however, the low actual fertility rate of the Giant Panda simply means that the Giant Panda population currently has a high saturation value. This implies that (almost) all panda souls are incarnated and that a new panda can only be born if another panda dies.

"And yet the Japanese can't get souls from the incredibly closely genetically related Europeans. Nope, if you're Japanese you have to have a Japanese soul. Doesn't the mental gymnastics required to hold these two opposed ideas make your brain hurt?"

We must be careful to distinguish short-term developments from long-term developments. In the same way as the short-term fixity of species does not hinder species from changing in the long term, a short-term constancy in soul-numbers of species or sub-species does not imply such constancy in the long term.

Let us assume that the probability of a given soul being born outside a given sub-population is very low under normal circumstances. Nevertheless, if environmental or other pressures reduce the size of the sub-population, this probability may increase, and it obviously reaches 100% if the sub-population becomes extinct.

Cheers, Wolfgang

Well is it a learning thread or "dur" Lets get it straighter, not every body has a soul. Countrys like India, Africa, are low in soul numbers. New souls are created by spirit guides if they are happy with the couple. soulless people are called useless eaters they live die and thats it. The lucky ones go on, the elite prepare for there next reincarnation. Havn't you had a aunty say " isn't he like great uncle Bill" mybe he is. Family sticks together leap froging down the generations. We know who all our grand kid have in them and the mother side is more important. Ley line are instant travel for our spirits and they gain sustance from the full moon light. Now do you want to here more or talk dribble? Cheers Old Bob.

Old Bob said:

Well is it a learning thread or "dur" Lets get it straighter, not every body has a soul. Countrys like India, Africa, are low in soul numbers. New souls are created by spirit guides if they are happy with the couple. soulless people are called useless eaters they live die and thats it. The lucky ones go on, the elite prepare for there next reincarnation. Havn't you had a aunty say " isn't he like great uncle Bill" mybe he is. Family sticks together leap froging down the generations. We know who all our grand kid have in them and the mother side is more important. Ley line are instant travel for our spirits and they gain sustance from the full moon light. Now do you want to here more or talk dribble? Cheers Old Bob.

Click to expand...

I want to "here" less, and "there" more, because the dribble here is starting to puddle.

I can't believe this damn thread is still going...

It seems to me that Wolfgang should take the following advice:

wogoga said:

The baby boom in the United States caused by the many deaths in Europe during World War II is a good example showing that souls "move from country to country".

Click to expand...

PixyMisa said:

Why did those souls move from Europe to the US, when Europe was also going through a baby boom?

Click to expand...

Many Europeans had moved to the United States, and the high death rate of their relatives in Europe increased their fertility. A quote from your referenced article:


It is old wisdom that wars increase fertility and sometimes even the proportion of male births. However, it is astonishing that the simple explanation of such old wisdom was found only less than 20 years ago (by me).

PixyMisa said:

Where did those spare souls come from, when, despite all the deaths in WWII, the population of Europe significantly increased between 1930 and 1950?

Click to expand...

There was no significant population increase between 1930 and 1950 in the Western countries leading the demographic transition. (The case of e.g. Japan is different, see figures). The figures of your source are affected by the fact that "the borders of most countries has changed several times and that the population statistics can therefore refer to either the country within its present or its historical borders."

Fertility between the two world wars became so low in some Western countries that for the first time predictions of population decline became popular. For instance:


The above is a quote from The Western Fertility Decline: Reflections from a Chronological Perspective dealing among others with "the very low fertility in the Depression of the 1930s" in Western countries (Northern, Western, Southern Europe, USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand).

The actual reason of this low fertility between the two world wars lies in the socioeconomic progress having led to a further substantial mortality decline.

Public Health and Mortality: What Can We Learn from the Past?:


With demographic saturation, it is easy to answer the three questions raised at the beginning of The Western Fertility Decline: Reflections from a Chronological Perspective.


The reason of the low fertility in 1930s was the normal demographic transition, in which due to continuously decreasing mortality and increasing life expectancy, a population is converging to saturation. A saturated population has reached its potential maximum and cannot grow further from within, as all or almost all corresponding souls are already incarnated.


The baby boom was an exceptional event caused by the deaths and prevented births during World War II. Without this war, a second demographic transition would not have occurred, and fertility rates would not have fallen as low as they have in the second transition, because Western population pyramids would have been more balanced with more persons in old age groups and less persons in fertile age groups.


Birth numbers will remain close to death numbers (i.e. actual fertility will remain close to direct-replacement fertility), and this will further lead to an increasing fertility due to population-aging and decreasing numbers of fertile-age cohorts.

Cheers, Wolfgang

wogoga said:

For instance, if a transcription factor in a human cell were fully determined by its electrons, protons and neutrons, then its movement as a whole would only resemble Brownian motion, but the transcription factor would not be able to find its destination on the incredibly long DNA. In order to do that, a transcription factor as a whole must be able to purposefully move (similar to migratory animals), and this implies an effect on the behaviour of its parts.

Click to expand...

wollery said:

Nope. The motion is determined by attractive and repulsive forces (those would be the electrons and protons at work). You're anthropomorphising, yet again.

Click to expand...

Is this a suggestion that the transcription factor has e.g. positive charge whereas its destination on the DNA has negative charge. An illustration of a transcription factor bound to DNA can be found here.

A quote from the psychon theory in order to get an imagination of the spatial proportions:


Also this animation can help to get an imagination of the vast spatial extent of DNA: Molecular Biology's Central Dogma.

Cheers, Wolfgang

@Wolfgang

It seems you missed this post:

MattusMaximus said:

I can't believe this damn thread is still going...

It seems to me that Wolfgang should take the following advice:

Click to expand...

In case you simply don't understand the relevance, I will now emphasise the significant points:


Get it?

Wogoga, you keep quoting yourself to back up your assertions. That's not very convincing, you know.

wogoga said:

Is this a suggestion that the transcription factor has e.g. positive charge whereas its destination on the DNA has negative charge. An illustration of a transcription factor bound to DNA can be found here.

A quote from the psychon theory in order to get an imagination of the spatial proportions:

How impossible it is that random thermal motions determine the happenings in living cells would become obvious, if one created an enlarged model of the DNA helix with a helix diameter of 50 cm, and if persons had to take over the functions of the many enzymes which are involved in the DNA replication. The whole human DNA (of one single cell), which normally is tightly packed, would be at such an enlargement about 500'000 km long. This model would also show how improbable it is that transcription factors could find a given DNA position, if there were only random motions and if recognition of the position were possible only by direct contact. Because of the enzyme size, this improbability cannot be hidden behind the Heisenberg uncertainty relations.​

Also this animation can help to get an imagination of the vast spatial extent of DNA: Molecular Biology's Central Dogma.

Cheers, Wolfgang

Click to expand...

You're invoking Heisenberg? Are you certain?

#165: "In the case of e.g. gravitation (of our planetary system) or Brownian motion, computer simulations can easily be made, because what happens in nature can be well explained by physical laws. In case of life however, simulations based on physical or chemical laws do not exist. Why? Those believing in quantum mechanics sometimes claim that such simulations are possible in principle, but that the needed computing power exceeds all existing computers."

#167: "No, since the laws of QM are probabilistic, not deterministic, no such precise simulation is possible. It would be possible to produce a simulation that gave a probable outcome, but not a certain outcome, as is possible for Newtonian mechanics."

#174: "So you concede that the rather deterministic than probabilistic construction of the bacterial flagellum cannot even in principle by explained by quantum mechanics and similar theories?"

#175: "Nope. I said that it's only possible to produce probabilistic models in QM. That doesn't mean that the actual evolution of the flagellum is impossible."

#182: "The problem we are dealing with is the goal-directed construction of the flagellum by enzymes."

#184: "Anthropomorphism. How do you know that the flagellum was the goal?"

My expression "construction of the bacterial flagellum by enzymes" relates to ontogeny and not to phylogeny. We must clearly distinguish between development of an individual organism (ontogeny) and evolutionary development of a species (phylogeny). So my conclusion remains correct: Goal-directed work of biological molecules defies the probabilistic nature of Quantum Mechanics and similar theories.

In the intransigent antagonism between proponents of neo-Darwinism and proponents of Intelligent-Design (ID), both sides are sure that the other side is wrong or even dishonest. In fact however, both sides are partly right and partly wrong. ID proponents start with reasonable basic probability-considerations suggesting the impossibility of macro-evolution.

Neo-Darwinians start more or less unconsciously with reasonings of this kind: if the laws of matter can transform a fertilized egg without difficulty into a human then such laws must in the long term also be able to transform monkeys into humans. Or: if a special mixture of biological molecules is enough for a bacterial flagellum to emerge, then such a seemingly complex rotary machine is in some respect so simple that also its evolutionary development by selection must be possible.

The common basic error of both neo-Darwinism and ID is the belief that physical and chemical laws as conceived by modern science are enough to explain life. We are told that panpsychism (not to be confused with animism) and vitalism have been refuted by scientific progress. In fact however, the victory of reductionist materialism over panpsychism and vitalism was rather an accidental result (for instance of scientific power politics) than the result of its superiority.

To sum up: Both neo-Darwinians and ID proponents start with the wrong premise of reductionist materialism. But whereas ID proponents conclude in a logical correct way from probability calculations to the impossibility of macro-evolution, neo-Darwinians conclude in a logical correct way from ontogenetic development to the possibility of phylogenetic evolution and further to the defectiveness of ID probability calculations.

Cheers, Wolfgang

Dawkinsism rendered sane: The Selfish Psychon

wogoga said:

My expression "construction of the bacterial flagellum by enzymes" relates to ontogeny and not to phylogeny. We must clearly distinguish between development of an individual organism (ontogeny) and evolutionary development of a species (phylogeny). So my conclusion remains correct: Goal-directed work of biological molecules defies the probabilistic nature of Quantum Mechanics and similar theories.

Click to expand...

And you're still wrong, because QM works on the subatomic scale, not the atomic or molecular scale, and so is irrelevant to the actions of enzymes. And you are still talking about Goal-directed work of biological molecules, which is anthropomorphism. Enzymes blindly do whatever job they do in any situation where they can do it. That's how DNA replication works too. There is no "Goal" as such.

In the intransigent antagonism between proponents of neo-Darwinism and proponents of Intelligent-Design (ID), both sides are sure that the other side is wrong or even dishonest. In fact however, both sides are partly right and partly wrong. ID proponents start with reasonable basic probability-considerations suggesting the impossibility of macro-evolution.

Click to expand...

ID proponents' probability-considerations are, indeed, very basic, and not at all reasonable.

And wrong.

Neo-Darwinians start more or less unconsciously with reasonings of this kind: if the laws of matter can transform a fertilized egg without difficulty into a human then such laws must in the long term also be able to transform monkeys into humans.

Click to expand...

No, they don't. Development of an embryo into a full adult is not connected in any way to evolution, beyond the fact that it is necessary for evolution, by way of procreation of said adult.

Or: if a special mixture of biological molecules is enough for a bacterial flagellum to emerge, then such a seemingly complex rotary machine is in some respect so simple that also its evolutionary development by selection must be possible.

Click to expand...

No, again. You're very good at these strawman arguments, aren't you?

The common basic error of both neo-Darwinism and ID is the belief that physical and chemical laws as conceived by modern science are enough to explain life. We are told that panpsychism (not to be confused with animism) and vitalism have been refuted by scientific progress. In fact however, the victory of reductionist materialism over panpsychism and vitalism was rather an accidental result (for instance of scientific power politics) than the result of its superiority.

Click to expand...

The victory over panpsychism was due to there being absolutely no evidence for any such phenomena.

To sum up: Both neo-Darwinians and ID proponents start with the wrong premise of reductionist materialism.

Click to expand...

No, ID proponents start with a wrong premise of "God did it".

But whereas ID proponents conclude in a logical correct way from probability calculations to the impossibility of macro-evolution,

Click to expand...

No, they don't, they conclude in an illogical way from erroneous probability assertions, much as you do with your 100 dice argument.

neo-Darwinians conclude in a logical correct way from ontogenetic development to the possibility of phylogenetic evolution

Click to expand...

Nope, evolution is not drawn from ontogenetic development, but from huge amounts of fossil and genetic evidence, not to mention direct observation of the evolution of viruses, bacteria and insects.

and further to the defectiveness of ID probability calculations.

Click to expand...

Which requires nothing more than 2 minutes applying half an unbiased brain, and relies not at all on anything more than an understanding of probability.

bruto said:

Wogoga, you keep quoting yourself to back up your assertions. That's not very convincing, you know.

Click to expand...

It is if the only person convinced by your woo is yourself

wogoga said:

Goal-directed work of biological molecules defies the probabilistic nature of Quantum Mechanics and similar theories.

Click to expand...

wollery said:

...

Click to expand...

"And you're still wrong, because QM works on the subatomic scale, not the atomic or molecular scale, and so is irrelevant to the actions of enzymes."

If we replace "Quantum Mechanics and similar theories" by "the fundamental physical laws of particles respective of matter", then your statement implies that the laws of biochemistry are independent from these fundamental physical laws. So what you say is in fact: Biochemistry cannot be reduced to or explained by physics. We agree on this.

However, the reductionist materialism you adhere to is based on the premise that the laws of biochemistry are fully determined by the underlying laws of physics. How can physical laws on the one hand fully determine the behaviour of enzymes, and on the other hand be "irrelevant"?

"And you are still talking about Goal-directed work of biological molecules, which is anthropomorphism."

Keeping quoting myself:


"Enzymes blindly do whatever job they do in any situation where they can do it."

Bees blindly do whatever job they do in any situation where they can do it. And also you blindly do whatever job you do in any situation where you can do it.

"That's how DNA replication works too."

Look at this animation. I’m sorry, but the belief that general physical laws are able to produce such a complex and coordinated collaboration of so many different participants is more than absurd and grotesque (at least from the Kantian viewpoint of pure-reason judgements).

And take also into consideration (from Wikipedia):


Cheers, Wolfgang

wogoga said:

If we replace "Quantum Mechanics and similar theories" by "the fundamental physical laws of particles respective of matter", then your statement implies that the laws of biochemistry are independent from these fundamental physical laws. So what you say is in fact: Biochemistry cannot be reduced to or explained by physics. We agree on this.

Click to expand...

Wrong.

Biochemistry is just chemistry; chemistry is just physics. The chemical properties of atoms can be - and are - derived from the quantum mechanical properties of those atoms.

What you say cannot be done is in fact routine.

Look at this animation. I’m sorry, but the belief that general physical laws are able to produce such a complex and coordinated collaboration of so many different participants is more than absurd and grotesque (at least from the Kantian viewpoint of pure-reason judgements).

Click to expand...

"Absurd" and "grotesque" are not valid objections to a statement of scientific fact. "Wrong" would be valid - but then you have to supply evidence that the statement is, in fact, wrong.

wogoga said:

If we replace "Quantum Mechanics and similar theories" by "the fundamental physical laws of particles respective of matter", then your statement implies that the laws of biochemistry are independent from these fundamental physical laws. So what you say is in fact: Biochemistry cannot be reduced to or explained by physics. We agree on this.

Click to expand...

No we don't, because that isn't what I said. That's the second time you've said that I claimed that. Please stop changing the meaning of what I say to suit your own ends. As PixyMisa pointed out, the properties of atoms can be derived from QM, and are. Chemical interactions can be derived from the properties of atoms. And biochemistry can be derived from the chemical interactions of atoms. So, biochemistry can be derived from QM. But the QM is 3 steps removed from the biochemistry, and is therefore irrelevant for the purposes of your argument.

However, the reductionist materialism you adhere to is based on the premise that the laws of biochemistry are fully determined by the underlying laws of physics. How can physical laws on the one hand fully determine the behaviour of enzymes, and on the other hand be "irrelevant"?

Click to expand...

They are irrelevant in the context of your argument, which (as I understand it) is that the apparent "goal-directed" behaviour of enzymes can't be explained by the probabilistic laws of QM. That argument is utterly spurious, because, 1. you have yet to show that the behaviour of enzymes is "goal-directed", and, 2. the behaviour of enzymes is determined by their chemical properties which, although they can be derived from QM, are not themselves quantum mechanical.

Keeping quoting myself:

The reductionist scientific world view as many religious world views is based on the premise that we humans are outside nature. It is admitted that human behaviour depends on objectives, values, intuition and a tendency towards order. However every attempt to admit analogous principles of finality in nature is criticized as anthropomorphism. (…) ​

Click to expand...

That's just hilariously funny. A large part of the criticism that scientists receive from the religious community is precisely because science places humans squarely within nature. You're the one trying to provide a supernatural explanation here.

Humans are capable of making decisions or having objectives & values because of the complicated chemical and electrical interactions that occur in our brains. Are you arguing that enzymes have brains?

"Enzymes blindly do whatever job they do in any situation where they can do it."

Bees blindly do whatever job they do in any situation where they can do it. And also you blindly do whatever job you do in any situation where you can do it.

Click to expand...

Nope.

Bees often show a preference for particular types of flowers, which displays more than just blind adherence to their task, and my brain allows me to decide what job I do, where I do it, when I do it, and how I do it.

"That's how DNA replication works too."

Look at this animation. I’m sorry, but the belief that general physical laws are able to produce such a complex and coordinated collaboration of so many different participants is more than absurd and grotesque (at least from the Kantian viewpoint of pure-reason judgements).

Click to expand...

You do realise that that animation is, um, an animation, don't you? It isn't a film of what actually happens, but a representation (highly simplified) of what happens.

And take also into consideration (from Wikipedia):

"Some DNA polymerases may also have some proofreading ability, removing nucleotides from the end of a strand in order to remove any mismatched bases. DNA polymerases are generally extremely accurate, making less than one error for every million nucleotides added."​

Click to expand...

Which proves precisely nothing. Sorry, but this doesn't show anything more than the fact that polymerase is a highly complex enzyme, which is capable of more than just one simple task.

I'd like to say two things

1. Your psychon 'theory' should be called a hypothesis as it is only a guess and cannot be verified by experiment.

2. Quantum physics does not yield 'probabalistic' results due to the probabilistic nature of the universe. Quantum theory yields probabilistic results because our methods of discovering the properties of the universe are based on limited tools and probability based models. Just because an electron can appear on the other side of an energy potential that it shouldn't have enough energy to penetrate does not mean that it just magically goes poof on one side and pop on the other. There is almost certainly a precise mechanism at work which we have yet to discover (as of the last time I studied quantum physics science hadn't discovered it, or maybe I just didn't get that far in).

Whack01 said:

2. Quantum physics does not yield 'probabalistic' results due to the probabilistic nature of the universe. Quantum theory yields probabilistic results because our methods of discovering the properties of the universe are based on limited tools and probability based models. Just because an electron can appear on the other side of an energy potential that it shouldn't have enough energy to penetrate does not mean that it just magically goes poof on one side and pop on the other. There is almost certainly a precise mechanism at work which we have yet to discover (as of the last time I studied quantum physics science hadn't discovered it, or maybe I just didn't get that far in).

Click to expand...

No, the universe really does work like that. What you're talking about is what is known as a hidden variable theory of QM. There is at least one workable hidden variable theory, but the hidden variable is nonlocal, meaning that it predicts that exact same quantum weirdness that conventional quantum mechanics does.

Which is a necessity in any QM theory, because quantum weirdness really happens.

None of which should be taken to imply that anything wogoga has said is in any way correct or even coherent...

i can't believe this thread is still going.

wogoga said:

So what you say is in fact: Biochemistry cannot be reduced to or explained by physics. We agree on this.

Click to expand...

wollery said:

No we don't, because that isn't what I said. That's the second time you've said that I claimed that. Please stop changing the meaning of what I say to suit your own ends.

Click to expand...

Read again post #211. In #212 you answered:


From your statement

• QM is irrelevant to the actions of enzymes

I deduce

• QM is irrelevant to at least essential parts of biochemistry

and further:

• Biochemistry cannot be reduced to or explained by QM

wollery said:

As PixyMisa pointed out, the properties of atoms can be derived from QM, and are. Chemical interactions can be derived from the properties of atoms. And biochemistry can be derived from the chemical interactions of atoms. So, biochemistry can be derived from QM. But the QM is 3 steps removed from the biochemistry, and is therefore irrelevant for the purposes of your argument.

Click to expand...

Congratulations on your excellent rhetoric. On the one hand, biochemistry can be derived from QM, and on the other hand, QM is irrelevant for the purposes of my argument. Here once again my original argument


and your objection:


The duplication time of Escherichia coli is 15-20 minutes in the laboratory. So we can predict that one healthy bacterium in an appropriate culture medium will create a second bacterium. Whether we call this duplication a goal or an unavoidable outcome (like the free fall of a stone), whether we call it purposeful or purposeless, is not important. Important however is that the highly complex process progresses in an efficient and quite deterministic way. E.g. before fission, the whole genome of around 4.6 million base pairs must have been doubled.

Even if one accepts the lame excuse that it is much too complicated to actually calculate biochemical behaviour from QM, one nevertheless should request at least an explanation of the principle by which the probabilistic nature of QM could result in the rather deterministic duplication of bacteria. If such an explanation is impossible, and I’m sure it is, then the psychon concept becomes a reasonable hypothesis at least for unprejudiced persons.

Cheers, Wolfgang

wogoga said:

one nevertheless should request at least an explanation of the principle by which the probabilistic nature of QM could result in the rather deterministic duplication of bacteria. If such an explanation is impossible, and I’m sure it is, then the psychon concept becomes a reasonable hypothesis at least for unprejudiced persons.

Click to expand...

Such an explanation is not impossible, but in fact very simple. Individual quantum events have a probabilistic nature, but the average behavior over many events approaches being deterministic. This is well-known and well-measured. If I put a sodium atom and a chlorine atom next to one another for 1 femtosecond, will they form a bond? That's a quantum event, say, with 50% probability. If I put them together for 1 nanosecond, will they form a bond? With 10^6 chances to "try again" if it doesn't work the first time, yes it's dead certain that they will form a bond.

That's how biochemistry works. Many individual aspects of the bonding may be uncertain---does this part stick on the first try? which way did the photon go? Which orientation was the water molecule in when it first hit the aquaporin? But these uncertain processes are smoothed out by millions of cycles of averaging, and the main results don't look very uncertain at all. (Keep in mind that the "error rates" of individual biochem processes are known. A biochemist can tell you how often DNA-DNA copying makes a mistake, how often RNA is transcribed wrong, how often the tRNA picks up the wrong amino acid, how often the ribosome picks up the wrong tRNA, etc. Shall we figure out where the fewest errors occur, and direct the psychons there?)

And if you doubt DNA replication because of "quantum uncertainty"---well, the same uncertainty should make you doubt the existence of ice crystals, table salt, laser pointers beams, and gas pressure.

wogoga said:

The reductionist scientific world view as many religious world views is based on the premise that we humans are outside nature. It is admitted that human behaviour depends on objectives, values, intuition and a tendency towards order. However every attempt to admit analogous principles of finality in nature is criticized as anthropomorphism. (…)

Click to expand...

wollery said:

That's just hilariously funny. A large part of the criticism that scientists receive from the religious community is precisely because science places humans squarely within nature. You're the one trying to provide a supernatural explanation here.

Click to expand...

I already have answered to this question on 12-Mar-1999. An extract:


A quote on Spinoza’s psychology from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:


Cheers, Wolfgang

wogoga said:

The duplication time of Escherichia coli is 15-20 minutes in the laboratory. So we can predict that one healthy bacterium in an appropriate culture medium will create a second bacterium. Whether we call this duplication a goal or an unavoidable outcome (like the free fall of a stone), whether we call it purposeful or purposeless, is not important. Important however is that the highly complex process progresses in an efficient and quite deterministic way.

Click to expand...

No.

E.g. before fission, the whole genome of around 4.6 million base pairs must have been doubled.

Click to expand...

Yes. And it's not deterministic. Some mutations arise via radiation, but others are caused by simple errors in DNA replication.

Even if one accepts the lame excuse that it is much too complicated to actually calculate biochemical behaviour from QM

Click to expand...

No such excuse is needed. Scientists actually do this.

one nevertheless should request at least an explanation of the principle by which the probabilistic nature of QM could result in the rather deterministic duplication of bacteria.

Click to expand...

Oh, that's easy. There is no such thing.

If such an explanation is impossible, and I’m sure it is, then the psychon concept becomes a reasonable hypothesis at least for unprejudiced persons.

Click to expand...

The "psychon" concept is not reasonable in any way. It is not based on any known fact or theory, nor does it lead to any testable predictions. As you yourself have shown, you can fit your conjecture to any dataset whatsoever.

wogoga said:

I already have answered to this question on 12-Mar-1999. An extract:

In this context it may be interesting to look at the history of 'naturalism'. A certainly questionable and maybe subjective simplification is the assumption that there was an evolution from animism to polytheism, to monotheism with God outside the world, to monotheism with God inside the world, to pantheism and finally to atheism. The difference between atheism and pantheism is not big, because in pantheism 'God' is only a synonym for 'world' and 'nature', or means a special aspect of the world.

The basis of modern science was built in the 17th century. One of the first consistent naturalists was Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), who explained the world in a panpsychist and panmaterialist way: space or matter is one aspect of the world (or of God or of nature), and thinking or consciousness a second. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) had explained the world in a quite similar way, based on a monotheism with God inside the world.

Both Kepler and Spinoza were fought and ridiculed especially by theologians but also by scientists. The alternative was the philosophy of Descartes: on the one hand was the material world and on the other human souls and God. Animals were considered pure machines without consciousness. The current scientific world view is based on the philosophy of Descartes. The big inconsistency of Cartesianism (animals as pure machines, humans having souls) was removed by removing the concept 'soul' (and 'God').

So why do you consider panpsychism as something supernatural? One main reason for its defeat was that it was a naturalistic explanation of the world not in agreement with theology.​

A quote on Spinoza’s psychology from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

"Despite his debts, Spinoza expressed deep dissatisfaction with the views of those who had preceded him. His dissatisfaction reflects the naturalistic orientation that he wished to bring to the subject:

Most of those who have written about the affects, and men's way of living, seem to treat, not of natural things, which follow the common laws of Nature, but of things which are outside Nature. Indeed they seem to conceive man in Nature as a dominion within a dominion. For they believe that man disturbs, rather than follows, the order of Nature, that he has absolute power over his actions, and that he is determined only by himself. (III Preface)​

In opposition to what he saw as a tendency on the part of previous philosophers to treat humans as exceptions to the natural order, Spinoza proposes to treat them as subject to the same laws and causal determinants as everything else. What emerges can best be described as a mechanistic theory of the affects."​

Cheers, Wolfgang

Click to expand...

You make the common mistake of equating self-awareness with soul. And no serious scientist today would suggest that humans are the only self-aware animal.

How can the probabilistic nature of QM result in the rather deterministic duplication of bacteria?

ben m said:

Such an explanation is not impossible, but in fact very simple. Individual quantum events have a probabilistic nature, but the average behavior over many events approaches being deterministic.

Click to expand...

That’s obvious. A good example is radioactive decay, where the huge number of involved atoms results in a very deterministic half-life period of radioactive matter.

However, the case we are dealing with is completely different. The genome of a harmless laboratory strain of E. coli was reported in 1997 to consist of a single DNA molecule containing 4,639,221 base pairs with 4288 proteins and 89 RNAs. It is possible to label in a unique way every single atom of the around 110 million atoms of this highly complex DNA molecule (resulting in a few hundreds of millions of clearly specified chemical bonds). Before cell fission, a copy consisting of the same or almost the same number of atoms bonded in exactly the same way is created.

Whereas in the case of radioactive decay, a huge number of different but equivalent configurations all result in the same percentage of decayed atoms, the objective of DNA replication is one single, highly specified and clearly determined configuration.

ben m said:

If I put a sodium atom and a chlorine atom next to one another for 1 femtosecond, will they form a bond? That's a quantum event, say, with 50% probability. If I put them together for 1 nanosecond, will they form a bond? With 10^6 chances to "try again" if it doesn't work the first time, yes it's dead certain that they will form a bond.

Click to expand...

In the same way we could explain crocodile behaviour by the probabilistic nature of QM:

ben m said:

A biochemist can tell you how often DNA-DNA copying makes a mistake, how often RNA is transcribed wrong, how often the tRNA picks up the wrong amino acid, how often the ribosome picks up the wrong tRNA, etc.

Click to expand...

The mutation rate of DNA copying depends on many factors, e.g. on polymerase proofreading ability. Both highly variable DNA regions with high mutation rates and highly conserved regions with almost no mutations exist. A relevant quote from the psychon theory:


By the way, that fact that we speak about mistakes implies that there is an objective, a goal. Only a deviation from such a goal can be called a mistake. In the case of radioactive decay or Brownian motion it obviously doesn’t make sense to speak of mistakes.

Cheers, Wolfgang

wogoga said:

How can the probabilistic nature of QM result in the rather deterministic duplication of bacteria?

Click to expand...

It doesn't. There's no such thing.

Hello? Is this thing on?

That’s obvious. A good example is radioactive decay, where the huge number of involved atoms results in a very deterministic half-life period of radioactive matter.

Click to expand...

No. There's a huge difference between statistical probability and determinism.

However, the case we are dealing with is completely different. The genome of a harmless laboratory strain of E. coli was reported in 1997 to consist of a single DNA molecule containing 4,639,221 base pairs with 4288 proteins and 89 RNAs. It is possible to label in a unique way every single atom of the around 110 million atoms of this highly complex DNA molecule (resulting in a few hundreds of millions of clearly specified chemical bonds). Before cell fission, a copy consisting of the same or almost the same number of atoms bonded in exactly the same way is created.

Click to expand...

"The same" is not the same as "almost the same".

Whereas in the case of radioactive decay, a huge number of different but equivalent configurations all result in the same percentage of decayed atoms

Click to expand...

Approximately.

the objective of DNA replication is one single, highly specified and clearly determined configuration.

Click to expand...

No. That's simply what it does. You're arguing that there is some reason for it to do that. You have presented no evidence for this.

In the same way we could explain crocodile behaviour by the probabilistic nature of QM:

If I put a hungry crocodile and a dead rabbit next to one another for 1 second, will they form a unity? That’s a quantum event, say, with 50% probability. If I put them together for 1 day, will they form a unity? With 86400 chances to "try again" if it doesn’t work the first time, yes it’s dead certain that the rabbit will end up in the crocodile.​

Click to expand...

One small problem: Your version is meaningless drivel.

By the way, that fact that we speak about mistakes implies that there is an objective, a goal.

Click to expand...

Only if you fail to understand the process itself. This is just anthropomorphism; it has no actual physical meaning.

Whack01 said:

Your psychon 'theory' should be called a hypothesis as it is only a guess and cannot be verified by experiment.

Click to expand...

In the case of fundamental scientific progress, there can be a continuous transition from an absurd hypothesis to a scientific fact. And what still seems as an absurdity to the majority can have become a scientific fact to someone else. From my own experience I know that it can be very difficult to change one’s position e.g. from believing in the impossibility of reincarnation to believing in its reality.

However, the impression of you and others that my psychon theory has no predictive power and that it cannot be verified by experiments is so obviously wrong that such an impression can only be explained by a kind of psychological repression.

You start with the premise that I cannot be right. Under this premise you conclude that relevant arguments for panpsychism and reincarnation are impossible, and thus you feel entitled to simply discard and ignore them. That’s your right. However, if one makes arguments disappear for oneself by ignoring them, one should not claim to others that such arguments do not exist.

Apart from counterarguments like I cannot imagine the existence of psychons or only material things can exist, not one single substantial argument against the psychon concept has been brought forward in the whole discussion. If you know such an argument, let me know.

In my posts and other texts I’ve presented several experiments ranging from physics over biochemistry and biology to demography.

Word War II was a huge and (as cynical as it may sound) very successful experiment of increasing fertility by increasing mortality.

Also the much higher mortality of men with respect to women in e.g. China leading to a higher proportion of male newborns can be considered an experiment. Another example: "The Paraguayan war at the end of the 19th century, for example, destroyed most of the male population and was followed by a spontaneous increase in male births". (See)

Domestication and aquaculture represent experiments by which the predictions of evolution by reincarnation can be verified.

By the way, a decline in the number of domesticated animals leads to a fertility increase in the corresponding wild populations. Because horses more and more have been replaced by modern means of transport, "the wild horses’ extraordinary reproductive potential, which can sometimes exceed 20% growth in a single year" (source) becomes understandable.

We can reduce pests in the wild by breeding them in special places and use them e.g. in order to create biological fuels. Normally only useful species are bred by humans, leading to a dwindling of the corresponding wild stocks (e.g. in the case of bees).

If the experiment of a worldwide ban on codfish aquaculture is performed then the wild stocks which have "never recovered from the overfishing of over three decades ago" will recover quickly.

Or let us find an animal species with a very low number of individuals and a low fertility. Then let us kill two thirds of its male population. A male baby boom will be the result. Then let us also kill two thirds of the female population and thereafter reduce mortality as much as possible. Fertility will become extremely low when the last baby boomers reach fertile age.

The actual very rapid mortality decline in many regions of the world also represents such an experiment, leading by logical necessity to extremely low fertility.

A quote from Mideast fertility rates plunge from January 2008:


Cheers,
Wolfgang

Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464): "When we say that the earth does not move, we mean simply that the earth is the point with reference to which man makes his observations of celestial phenomena."

wogoga said:

In the case of fundamental scientific progress, there can be a continuous transition from an absurd hypothesis to a scientific fact.

Click to expand...

Maybe... but this is hardly relevant as you are promoting fundamental woo, piled high with superstition, topped off with wishful thinking

wogoga said:

From my own experience I know that it can be very difficult to change one’s position e.g. from believing in the impossibility of reincarnation to believing in its reality.

Click to expand...

If it's difficult for you with your overwhelming confirmation bias, imagine how unlikely it is that any sceptic will even begin to swallow your half-baked fancy - especially when you fail to provide any evidence for the 'souls' that underpin your so-called hypothesis

wogoga said:

However, the impression of you and others that my psychon theory has no predictive power and that it cannot be verified by experiments is so obviously wrong that such an impression can only be explained by a kind of psychological repression.

Click to expand...

If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to get that confirmation bias under control

Consider the alternative: if you started with observed reality and then posited an idea supported by evidence from verifiable experiments, then sceptics might be less inclined to dismiss the 'predictive power' as nothing more than post-hoc cherry picking

And STOP calling it a theory!

wogoga said:

You start with the premise that I cannot be right.

Click to expand...

How do you know?

Oh, right... you don't.... So why pretend that you do?

I suspect that you start with the premise that you cannot be wrong.

I suggest that, before assuming that reincarnation is anything other than a purely fantasy-based notion, you go back to the start provide some evidence to support what you call 'souls'

wogoga said:

However, the impression of you and others that my psychon theory has no predictive power and that it cannot be verified by experiments is so obviously wrong that such an impression can only be explained by a kind of psychological repression.

Click to expand...

If it can be verified by experiment then all you have to do is propose such an experiment (in detail) and explain (in detail) exactly how it would falsify your "hypothesis".

Your time starts... now.

In my posts and other texts I’ve presented several experiments ranging from physics over biochemistry and biology to demography.

Click to expand...

No you haven't.

Word War II was a huge and (as cynical as it may sound) very successful experiment of increasing fertility by increasing mortality.

Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Even if you had predicted the post-war baby booms before they happened (an important thing about predictions: they are supposed to come before the event) it would not distinguish your "hypothesis" from any other that also predicted a post-war baby boom.

Also the much higher mortality of men with respect to women in e.g. China leading to a higher proportion of male newborns can be considered an experiment.

Click to expand...

No. Not only is it again not a prediction, but you are assuming causation without any evidence.

If the experiment of a worldwide ban on codfish aquaculture is performed then the wild stocks which have "never recovered from the overfishing of over three decades ago" will recover quickly.

Click to expand...

Two points: This does not confirm the existence of "psychons" in any way. Second, are you saying that if we ban cod fishing and cod numbers do not quickly recover, this falsifies your theory?

How, exactly?

Or let us find an animal species with a very low number of individuals and a low fertility. Then let us kill two thirds of its male population. A male baby boom will be the result. Then let us also kill two thirds of the female population and thereafter reduce mortality as much as possible. Fertility will become extremely low when the last baby boomers reach fertile age.

Click to expand...

Now that is actually a testable prediction. At least in theory. In practice, no-one is going to let you wipe out two thirds of a naturally occurring species. Will an artificially-created species do?

The actual very rapid mortality decline in many regions of the world also represents such an experiment, leading by logical necessity to extremely low fertility.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't, for all the reasons cited previously.

wogoga,
I've got a question and a request.

1. It is a trivial scientific fact that resource saturation always places a fundamental upper limit on population growth, even if we take your spurious cherry picking of statistics as fact, how would we distinguish the depletion of tangible resources from the depletion of soul resources?

2. Can you please put present some sort of formal model, with equations or some geometry, something that we can plug numbers/data into, and independently verify your results?

Words are cheap and there is imho no way to objectively evaluate a result that is described in vague language. The calculations that you do are completely unpersuasive because I have absolutely no idea why you picked the numbers you did and applied them in the way you chose.

Wogoga, I am curious about your take on male-female birthrates in China. China has long had a reputation for female infanticide, and more recently for abortion of females. According to at least some sources, this practice has increased in recent years, as a result of the "one child" policy. Do you have some other data that demonstrate that such allegations are untrue, and that there is actually a natural imbalance toward male births in China, or are you just misreading population statistics? It would be useful here if you could come up with a citation written by someone other than yourself.

wogoga said:

If the experiment of a worldwide ban on codfish aquaculture is performed then the wild stocks which have "never recovered from the overfishing of over three decades ago" will recover quickly.

Click to expand...

PixyMisa said:

Two points: This does not confirm the existence of "psychons" in any way. Second, are you saying that if we ban cod fishing and cod numbers do not quickly recover, this falsifies your theory?

Click to expand...

At first, we must distinguish between fishing and aquaculture. That a ban on cod fishing entails a recovery of cod numbers agrees with neo-Darwinian biology. Evolution-by-reincarnation however, assuming a limited number of codfish souls, leads to this conclusion: Despite a ban on cod fishing, the numbers of wild codfish cannot fully recover as long as a substantial amount of codfish is harvested in aquaculture.

If we ban aquaculture however, all the cod souls detained in such artificial environments again will be born as wild codfish, leading to a full recovery of the wild codfish population. If such a ban does not lead to a recovery in the absence of obvious other reasons (such as overfishing or disappearance of food or habitat), then such a non-recovery falsifies my theory.

With the question of how empirical data can confirm or refute the existence of psychons I’ve dealt in post #189.

zosima said:

It is a trivial scientific fact that resource saturation always places a fundamental upper limit on population growth, even if we take your spurious cherry picking of statistics as fact, how would we distinguish the depletion of tangible resources from the depletion of soul resources?

Click to expand...

The simplest way to test the predictions of a gravitation theory is to choose empirical or experimental situations where other (e.g. electromagnetic) effects are not relevant. So the simplest way to test the effect of limited soul numbers on population growth is to choose empirical and experimental situations, where apart from the limited soul number no other effects prevent the population from growing (for instance).

It is obvious that every population is limited by the availability of resources. Nevertheless, the lower the percentage of souls incarnated at the same time, the higher is fertility (of the strong healthy individuals) and as a consequence also mortality. In the long run, a decrease in resources can also lead to dwarfism instead of a lower proportion of souls incarnated at the same time.

Cheers, Wolfgang

Wogoga:
So let me get this right, dwarfs have less soul than a normal person? I guess James Brown would be worth at least two John Kerry's,right?

No but seriously, nothing you have said has disproved the possibility that the Japanese are facing an economic, a physical(spatial), and a social limitation. I'm not going to believe in something completely without evidence and clearly paranormal unless you can eliminate these other more mundane limitations. (I site your oft sited Occam's Razor)

Also, I noticed you answered one of my questions but not the other. You must have read it. That silence confirms that you have no formal model. Therefore I must conclude you are just picking the statistics you perceive to support your hypothesis and combining them to suit whatever whim strikes you.

IMHO: no model -> you=pile of woo.

Wogoga, can I ask for a prediction? I'm thinking of a small, isolated population of trees, of a genus with no close relatives. The population was apparently small and static for millennia upon millennia---it's possible you would have called it "saturated". After an encounter with humans, can you predict whether the population of this tree species went up or down? Does demographic saturation forbid one or the other?

I'm also thinking of an organism whose population was *large* and stable for many millennia---I dare say you would have called it "saturated". After an encounter with humans, this population got either (a) even larger or (b) very small. Can you predict which one it was, using Demographic Saturation Theory?

Gord_in_Toronto said:

So is the number of souls limited by "race", by geographic location, or globally? The OP claims all three. They can't all be correct.

How are the new born children of "mixed race" or who's parents move to another country or leave the planet assigned their souls?

Just asking questions.

Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing - why just the Japanese? Maybe souls are nationalistic. Just one of countless, annoying glitches in this theory.

bruto said:

Wogoga, I am curious about your take on male-female birthrates in China.

Click to expand...

Read the chapter China's missing girls. An extract:


So if the UN data are correct, then a dwindling in the female proportion in China simply does not occur.

bruto said:

China has long had a reputation for female infanticide, and more recently for abortion of females.

Click to expand...

At least in the poorer social groups and in remote regions, antenatal sex determination should not have been very widespread.

Infanticide has a long tradition, not only in East Asia. An example from Infanticide - Changing views of the nature of the child:


If we assume that a sex ratio at birth of around 105 boys per 100 girls is a natural law, then in the case of a sex ratio of registered newborns of around 115 we have no other choice than to assume that almost 10% of the females have been liquidated. And the hypothesis of killing innocent little girls is certainly suitable for headlines. (Maybe the spread of the whole story has even been fostered by anti-Chinese political interests.)

bruto said:

According to at least some sources, this practice has increased in recent years, as a result of the "one child" policy.

Click to expand...

On the efficiency of the one child policy in general see post #104.

The highest SRB of China in 2000 was in Hainan with 138 boys per 100 girls. However, if you look at table 4 of Low Fertility in China, UN, 2006, you will find that policy fertility of this province in 2000 was as high as 2.14 and actual fertility was 1.8 children per woman. Yet Shanghai with the lowest policy fertility (1.06) had a SRB of 'only' 116 boys per 100 girls.

So the decisive question is: Does any evidence of female mass infanticide and abortion in China exist which is not logically deduced from seemingly impossible sex ratios of children? And here we must not confuse single cases with a systematic killing of millions of 'missing girls' before or after birth.

Imbalances in sex ratios exist in both directions (e.g. substantially more women than men in Russia and Ukraine) and do not represent a new phenomenon. Case, Kinship and Sex Ratios in India, 2008:


Cheers, Wolfgang

Bah
I want my model, Wogoga!

Your answers mean nothing if you just pick them out of a hat. Even without making any predictions, a rational description needs to explain how the rules applied in one situation are the same as those applied in another one, or why you use different rules in different situations.

I know you've read my request because you answered my other question in the same post. You should at least explain why you think its better to make ad-hoc explanations up as you go along rather than have an explicit hypothesis, if you don't care to have one.

ben m said:

Wogoga, can I ask for a prediction? I'm thinking of a small, isolated population of trees, of a genus with no close relatives. The population was apparently small and static for millennia upon millennia---it's possible you would have called it "saturated". After an encounter with humans, can you predict whether the population of this tree species went up or down? Does demographic saturation forbid one or the other?

Click to expand...

I assume that a tree is different from an animal insofar as a tree as a whole has no psychon, in the same way as a living and growing city has no city-soul. This entails that in the case of plant species in general, what remains constant should rather be the weight of the whole species or subspecies than the number of individuals. The question of how easily one tree species can grow at the expense of related tree species can only be decided by empirical research. Because the complexity of trees is smaller than the complexity of animals, it should be easier for tree species than for animal species to grow at the expense of related species.

Whether the population of your tree species went up or down, depends on the interaction with the humans and on other factors. If such a tree species actually is so different from all other tree species that it represents a distinct genus, then a growth at the expense of other tree species is improbable.

But how can we know that a population of trees was constant over many thousand years? At least in times of extreme climatic conditions (e.g. droughts) a decline in the population is very probable. And I actually do not know whether saturation values near 100% or much lower values are more widespread. Despite a huge population growth in the recent past, mankind for instance is still a not yet saturated species.

In general, plants and trees bred or fostered by humans tend to grow at the expense of related strains. And at least in principle, it should be possible to exterminate any species.

I do not know whether since the advent of agriculture the quantity of e.g. cultivated wheat has grown only at the expense of wild wheat strains or also at the expense of other related species. Nevertheless, I’m quite optimistic that future research will be able to clear up such questions.

Cheers, Wolfgang

wogoga said:

Read the chapter China's missing girls. An extract:

According to the 2006 revision data, the sex ratio at death (SRD) of China has been continuously increasing from 104 (males per 100 females) in 1975-1980 to 123 in 2000-2005.

According to the same source, China's SRBirth was 115 in 2000-2005, thus substantially lower than the SRD of 123. In light of the homeostatic link between deaths and births, even this question arises: why is the proportion of girls at birth higher than the proportion of females at death?​

So if the UN data are correct, then a dwindling in the female proportion in China simply does not occur.





At least in the poorer social groups and in remote regions, antenatal sex determination should not have been very widespread.

Infanticide has a long tradition, not only in East Asia. An example from Infanticide - Changing views of the nature of the child:

"However, as a result of hard times and a high illegitimacy rate, infanticide was the most common crime in Western Europe from the Middle Ages to the end of the eighteenth century."​

If we assume that a sex ratio at birth of around 105 boys per 100 girls is a natural law, then in the case of a sex ratio of registered newborns of around 115 we have no other choice than to assume that almost 10% of the females have been liquidated. And the hypothesis of killing innocent little girls is certainly suitable for headlines. (Maybe the spread of the whole story has even been fostered by anti-Chinese political interests.)





On the efficiency of the one child policy in general see post #104.

The highest SRB of China in 2000 was in Hainan with 138 boys per 100 girls. However, if you look at table 4 of Low Fertility in China, UN, 2006, you will find that policy fertility of this province in 2000 was as high as 2.14 and actual fertility was 1.8 children per woman. Yet Shanghai with the lowest policy fertility (1.06) had a SRB of 'only' 116 boys per 100 girls.

So the decisive question is: Does any evidence of female mass infanticide and abortion in China exist which is not logically deduced from seemingly impossible sex ratios of children? And here we must not confuse single cases with a systematic killing of millions of 'missing girls' before or after birth.

Imbalances in sex ratios exist in both directions (e.g. substantially more women than men in Russia and Ukraine) and do not represent a new phenomenon. Case, Kinship and Sex Ratios in India, 2008:

"In India and probably elsewhere in Asia, however, the case of 'missing woman' has deep historical roots. While it is difficult to identify when the problem of 'missing woman' first arose in India, British officials were well aware of the problem in North India during the mid-nineteenth century."​

Cheers, Wolfgang

Click to expand...

All that does not seem to answer my question, or to reinforce your idea that more boys are born in china because of the higher mortality of men. I see nothing in the above citations to suggest that there is any natural tendency for more boys than girls to be born - rather the opposite. In addition, of course, we have yet to see any other evidence to suggest that there is any aspect of gender that is not physical and that psychons, if they exist at all, are sexed.

wogoga said:

According to the 2006 revision data, the sex ratio at death (SRD) of China has been continuously increasing from 104 (males per 100 females) in 1975-1980 to 123 in 2000-2005.

Click to expand...

bruto said:

All that does not seem to answer my question, or to reinforce your idea that more boys are born in china because of the higher mortality of men.

Click to expand...

So I cannot help.

bruto said:

In addition, of course, we have yet to see any other evidence to suggest that there is any aspect of gender that is not physical and that psychons, if they exist at all, are sexed.

Click to expand...

A substantial part of the information needed for the ontogenetic development of a men or a woman comes from the soul. It is reasonable to assume that human souls being able to change gender have appeared during biological evolution. Yet such a gender change entails a tendency to hermaphroditism, non-heterosexuality, transvestism and similar.

Could the threads Reincarnation Is A FACT!!!!!!!! of Space_Ed and Reincarnation is going to happen to you be an attempt of guilt by association?

Cheers, Wolfgang