How I argued with atheists to develop the Evolution 2.0 theory…

(Warning: This flies in the face of the mainstream understanding of Evolution from the likes of Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Bill Nye, and others.)

I made sure my fight with atheists would be the opposite of a political debate.

In the average political debate, the candidates take soft-pitch questions from friendly moderators, and easily get by with half-cocked answers to serious questions.

As soon as I started developing the theory that would grow into Evolution 2.0, I knew I’d catch flak.

After all, ANYBODY who claims to have a theory of where we came from and how evolution works (or doesn’t) is going to catch flak — from creationists, atheists, and everyone in between. If my theory couldn’t hold up to everything thrown at it, I wanted to know.

So I decided to take my theory on DNA and evolution straight to my staunchest opponents — and let them try to rip it to shreds.

I wrote an email series called “Where does the universe come from?” and I got it into the hands of anybody I thought would have a strong opinion — and encouraged them to pound on the ideas as hard as they could.

Here’s the story… And the breakthrough it led me to…

Click here now to get 3 chapters from my new book, Evolution 2.0, right now. 

18 Responses

  1. Hi Perry,
    I appreciate your vision, because am also skeptical about the adequacy of both Darwinism and intelligent design. This is why in my recent paper “Evolution Physical Intelligent Guiding Principle”, which will appear on the scientific journal “Energy, Ecology and Environment”, I have made the following abstract:
    Ordinary physics being unable to specify an intelligent guiding principle to account for the apparent life’s intelligent design, some of the intelligent design movement advocates propose a metaphysical intelligent designer. In this regard, although intelligent design movement starts from a valid scientific premise it ends up with a metaphysical inference that cannot be empirically falsified. Thus it undermines its scientific credibility. Based on quantum information biology (QIB) which is a generalized physics hypothesis, we demonstrate that biological evolution is subject to a physical intelligent guiding principle (PIGP). Generalized physics (QIB) is a set of physical properties and laws that distinguish life from non-life, irreducible to ordinary physics, and admit limiting transition to quantum mechanics. In other words biology, or some aspects of it, is generalized physics. According to the PIGP a species’ increase of bio-complexity, phylogenetically, measured in terms of Jorgensen’s eco-exergy density is a function of its bio-intelligence. Bio-intelligence has the dimensions of action, information and time; it is the capacity to generate bio-complexity, and represents evolution target criterion. The PIGP does not clash with Darwinian evolution basic mechanism, random mutational changes and natural selection. Because natural selection selects beneficial mutations and beneficial mutations are those which satisfy the criteria of bio-intelligence, so beneficial mutations are not random. Bio-intelligence is the origin of human intelligence, i.e., “The nature of intelligence is nature’s intelligence.
    Concerning my Tweet to you yesterday, I clarified (in another work) that the origin of DNA and its genetic code is a deterministic consequence of the union of the maximum action principle and the DNA’s golden ratio based dodecahedron fractal geometry. I have revealed that there is a hidden or embedded bio-information code within the standard genetic code that carries the syntax for producing viable functional proteins. Even if my approach does satisfy your specification for the prize at least I think revealing the syntax according to which the genetic code produces functional proteins is a prerequisite for any naturalistic code in general. This is why I said to you I need help to accomplish the project.

    • Elsheikh,

      Having briefly surveyed your website I think you are on the right track. Are you following the work of Jean-Claude Perez and Andras Pellionisz? I Believe their perspectives are very simpatico with yours. I am personally sympathetic to your approach and I think you are on the right track. These questions are very important and we must start by taking them seriously.

      Thanks for coming here, I’m glad to have you alone.

      • Perry,
        Many thanks for concern. Am sure my theory of “Quantum In- formation Biology” supports Evolution2. I have cited Perez in most of my papers but I will also consider Pellionisz.
        Am grateful to have your sympathy.

    • Ed Howard says:

      You said, “. Because natural selection selects beneficial mutations and beneficial mutations are those which satisfy the criteria of bio-intelligence, so beneficial mutations are not random. Bio-intelligence is the origin of human intelligence, i.e., “The nature of intelligence is nature’s intelligence.”
      Is not this God’s plan? He made (created) things that way.

      • Thanks Howard for joining. Yes one may assume that scientific theories and laws reflect God’s plan. However two problems arise: First there is no way to prove the validity of this assumption. Second science develops by refuting and transcending itself, i.e., showing the limitations of certain theories and laws. This process does not harm science, on the contrary it is a source of its richness and meaning to human endeavor. I think to correlate God’s plan with these theories and laws which reflect human limitations damages God’s absolute power. Can we define God independent of human actions, because whatever belong to human actions is human?

    • Old Git Tom says:

      M Eisheikh,
      your post seems to posit metaphysics & science as incompatibles. This is not true. Metaphysics embraces all forms of self-consistent logic. Eg., math is one such. Science could not exist w/out metaphysics. Indeed, the medieval scholastics provided the reasoning & intellectual rigor that inspired (later) empirical science.

      • Old Git Tom
        I do not think the claim that “conceptualization God’s supremacy in terms of human falsifiable achievements negates the notion of God” makes science and metaphysics incompatible. I agree that metaphysics as self-consistent logic (e.g math.) is a basic substratum of scientific inquiry.

        • Old Git Tom says:

          Thanks; & as you’d probably agree, the conventional views of ‘scientific enquiry’ have necessarily been heavily amended as the ‘non-logical’, ‘counter-intuitive’ behaviors of the sub-atomic & meta-physical realms have been revealed. Eg., scientific positivism & materialism became antique, Victorian aberrations.
          To cut to a conclusion, there is no singular ‘scientific method’ competent to address the entire range of human experience. Much elusively transcends science, math & logic, however immaculately they are true to themselves. A prime example would be ethics. The scientific tradition has failed to provide any consistent arguments why humans should not behave like selfish beasts. Atheist Bertrand Russell tried, & produced prolly his worst piece of philosophy (AFAIK).

          • Thanks for concern. “The scientific tradition has failed to provide any consistent arguments why humans should not behave like selfish beasts.” Why?
            Because Darwinian Theory has two basic inadequate claims:
            1 – Survival has a single component which is reproductive fitness.
            2- Evolution is a random purposeless process.
            The first inadequacy limits selection with its mechanisms of selfishness, aggression and despotism to within group. It does not account for among groups selection which needs cooperation, altruism and creativity. Or as Wilson and Wilson put it “Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups.” (2006). This inadequacy obstructs Darwinism from laying a foundation for morality based on altruistic and cooperative values. To overcome this problem Elsheikh, based on his theory of quantum information biology (QIB) (2010, 2014, and 2015) revealed that the genome total bio-information generates two survival components: The Darwinian reproductive fitness component and bio-intelligence fitness component. Bio-intelligence is the capacity to generate bio-complexity, it represents the evolution target criterion, it is associated with altruism and creativity, and represents among groups fitness unit. On this perspective morality as an attribute of bio-intelligence creates religion to fulfill its goals, and not vice versa.
            Concerning the second inadequacy Elsheikh, based on QIB, showed that evolution is not a random process, it is underpinned by the maximum action principle according to which evolution maximizes bio-intelligence. Thus, although mutational changes are random, beneficial mutations for which the bio-information attractor undertakes negative damping, are beneficial because they generate or consolidate a bio-intelligence quantum information stationary functional state, so they are not random. In consequance Darwinian Theory becomes more intelligible, because as natural selection provides the mechanism, the maximum action principle provides the driving force. Then both questions of how and why evolution occurs are answered on naturalistic basis.
            For more information please see:
            Elsheikh M. (2014). Discovery of the Life-Organizing Principle- In Search of the Fundamental Laws of Life. iUniverse LLC, Bloomington, IN.USA. 2014.
            Elsheikh M. (2015). In Search of Quantum Information Biology. ADVANCES IN SYSTEMS BIOLOGY VOL.4 NO.1 201.

            • Old Git Tom says:

              EM Elsheikh,
              thank you; I am with you on the deficiencies of Darwinism as a starting point for ethics, but citing yourself as a support for your own position is not sound reasoning. Eg., you have a particular interpretation of ‘intelligence’ (bio or o/wise). It also has many other definitons. Why do you think yours is best?
              Secondly, if the ‘scientific’ approach is broadened to include the materialist ethics of consequentialism (Bentham/Mill – ‘greatest good of greatest number’), then the resulting moral calculations have always confounded themselves with nasty final conclusions.
              I’d suggest the reason for failure is that ‘materialist ethics’ is an oxymoron. Whether divinely inspired or not, ‘good’ & ‘bad’ are purely immaterial, human values. And, if humans & the universe are ESSENTIALLY material/matter, we humans are ultimately governed by laws outside our control, w/out free will. If that’s so, moral choices are simply beyond us.

              • Welcome; Based on the scientific method, as you know, definitions and hypotheses are questions posed to nature, which is supposed to identify the best answer or definition, not the questioner. For this sake scientific definitions must be operationally defined. I think bio-intelligence, having the dimensions of action, information and time, satisfies this criterion.
                As you know humans are not absolutely free, e.g., a human is not free not to be born, not free not to die, not free – unaided by technology- to fly like a bird, etc. Nonetheless within certain domain a human can chose and do what inanimate systems cannot do. Such domain must be characterized by downward causation while inanimate systems belong to a domain characterized by upward causation. Moreover a human can choose and do what animals cannot do, in such case a human must belong to a domain in which production of bio-intelligence which is a phylogenetic property is realized as an ontogenetic property, so humans become both products and producers of bio-intelligence. This hypothesis is about the evolutionary origin of altruism, religion and human creativity; it has nothing to do with the “materialist ethics of consequentialism (Bentham/Mill – ‘greatest good of greatest number)”. It is based on bio-information which is irreducible to the ordinary laws of matter and energy. I admire science because it has the capacity to develop and fill in the gabs by correcting itself.

                • Old Git Tom says:

                  EM Elsheikh,
                  thanks for your thoughts, which are not obviously consistent with all ‘science’. Eg., if you choose your own definitions of terms, your conclusions will tend to be that, personal. AFAIK, there is no simple definition of ‘the scientific method’ that embraces all necessary & sufficient elements. The more comprehensive the definiton, the more it comes to appear an untidy laundry list, a description, rather than a tight definition; as with ‘the experimental’. Some science is not experimental. It is observational, or statistical, or explores realms of esoteric math.
                  You claim ‘- bio-information’ ‘is irreducible to the ordinary laws of matter and energy’. Plausibly, but what definition of information are you relying on? Some modern physics sees info. as the fifth state of matter. ‘Hard’ materialists such as Minsky (IT) accept the operations of a thermostat as proof of intelligence & info: you?
                  We come back to Perry Marshall’s key point. However genetic information (DNA) is seen or theorized, it is transmitted as code of some form, & demands decoding by bio-intelligence to operate on/in matter.
                  What most varieties of materialism are usually keen to ignore is the crucial, creative aspect of true intelligence. The brain is not like a telephone exchange or assembly of on/off binary switches (add other failed ‘science’ theories if you wish). It learns, corrects, & adds informational value. Intelligence creates.

                  • Old Git Tom,
                    I appreciate your engagement in this fruitful discussion. I think I will benefit and learn from you if you have the opportunity to read some of my papers, e.g.,
                    It is free. Thank you.

                    • Old Git Tom says:

                      EM Elsheikh,
                      it is a physical impossibility to read all ‘papers’, published in large amounts for even narrow study areas; that applies also to paid professionals. What everyone does is select, & hope for the best. Your task here is to convince me that time spent on your particular material will be rewarding. Maybe my failing, but so far I fail to see the ‘reason’ why I should, & I have given much time to academic stuff that did not establish what was claimed.

                    • Old Git Tom
                      Dear, I requested you to have a look to a single paper not all papers. Then how can I convince you about a new discovered scientific hypothesis if you do not even have time to read it. If you read it there will be something common to discuss and I will benefit from your comments. Otherwise, no subject, and it will be waste of time. And I do not want to waste your time.

  2. Elijah says:

    hi perry,am little concerned if you say that science(qua science) and religion dont match and that we leave in a reality whwere we need to use the same cognitive way towards religion as that of science, am afraid then i find it, a little bit of a problem.

  3. Hugh Ingpen says:

    Hello everyone..the great debate continues. Firstly may I say that I am not a scientist. I see quantum mechanics bridging the chasm between science and spirituality as truth continues to unravel. I have been following the Pleiadian channellings for several years now. The Pleiadians are apparently 5th dimentional beings who are part of our history and are involved with our evolution to multidimentionality. If we are going to examine the big question from all angles, then we must be open to the possibility of this. They talk about earth being the living library. They claim that all of the various species on earth were seeded from other parts of the galaxy to interact on a free will basis, including ourselves. Please read Barbara Marciniak’s “Earth..Pleiadian keys to the living library” which is corroborated by Barbara Hand Clow’s ” The Pleiadian agenda” or Ken Carrey’s “The starseed transmissions” and “Starseed..the third millennium”. We are, as humans, apparently on the verge of evolving to a multidimentional existence as our frequency increases. This is corroborated by the scientist Gregg Braden in his many writings including “Awakening to zero point”. There seems to be so much more to the picture than the 2 polar opposites, creation/evolution. David Icke supports the theory that our DNA has been manipulated too. You may be thinking that this is whacky and far out but I have been following this for 30 years now. There is masses of evidence that other worldly technologies have been used on earth long before conventional technology would have allowed, the precision cutting of stone at Puma Punca in Peru, Machu Pichu, Egypt are just a few examples. The “junk DNA” spoken of, by many scientists, is apparently being re awakened as we become multidimentional. I don’t think nature makes big mistakes like that. Einstein said that if we used all of our brains capability we would become pure energy and would no longer be physical beings as we know ourselves now. I think there is a plausible link between all this information. As we release fear and vibrate at higher frequencies we will access multidimentionality. Apparently some on earth already have. I would love to hear feedback on this. Thank you

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *