History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

Repost: Pop-gen

March 28th, 2013 · No Comments


I skulked away with the whole text in the previous post: it touches on an important issue of mathematical population genetics. With a good deal of training in math I have nonetheless had to ‘self-train’ in pop-gen, and was consistently suspicious of the whole subject, without complete confidence (the literature is dispersed and hard to fathom at some points): clearly it does not do the job required in the sense that Newton’s mechanics gives a beautiful key to high level non-quantum bodies. So I feel renewed confidence reading this article that my suspicions are confirmed (I have recorded them in DMR)….

It is important to consider that an outside organization was/is necessary to debrief pop-gen, a job mainstream scientists would never undertake.

By the way: this issue must be the key to something deep tht is missing in current biology. It is, in a way, obvious that pop-gen is a surfce exploration and not a true theory. It is possibly the elusive difference between gentotype and phenotype that is at work here, and this may in turn be but a step in an unknown direction toward seeing an invisible dimensionality to the organism. Under those conditions pop-gen would be a superficial subject…

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment