These quotes in this post are from: http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
So, if the population does continue to grow, would that refute psychon theory?
If we were to conduct a study on births and deaths, how would we be able to examine the psychons of each person, to see if they are shared or not, to know this was an active mechanism in the world?
Correct. But, Darwin's theory of Evolution is the opposite
of random probability. Natural selection is a non-random
algorithm of variety pruning in a population. It would actually be expected for complex things to emerge from the algorithm, much faster than random chance, alone.
Why would scientists support a theory that relied on random chance so strongly? Wouldn't such randomness defeat the scientific endeavor? Scientists are not (usually) that stupid! They mainly support algorithms, such as Evolution, which help them make predictions about life forms, that are NOT random.
Read my previous post. It is NOT "how much" information that matters, but "how it is used". This arguments smacks of personal incredulity. Just because you cannot fathom how it can survive with so little information, does not mean that someone who has studied the virus more than you cannot ever figure it out.