Was Darwin Wrong?
|Page: < 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 >||
|26.05.2010 08:51, Matthew Turner from Japan :|
After patiently struggling with this theory for so long, it is perhaps curious that I have become so impatient. But I have decided to publicly release my book for free. I need someone - anyone - to read it! It can be downloaded as an ebook in formats suitable for all portable reading devices at:
For better formatting, please use the free pdf download at Lulu.com:
I'm not sure if these website addresses work, they seem to change every time I check, but if they don't, go to smashwords.com or Lulu.com and search under my name or the title of the book.
I've added the subtitle "a new theory of evolution" to the title, and have also added a preface that explains who I am and why I am publishing in this way. I had wanted to keep the book fairly anonymous, but it seems people are not interested unless you show them who you are.
I would still like to send you a physical copy of the book if there is any chance that you might read it (but I need your address).
Thank you once again for taking the time to respond to me!
|23.05.2010 11:17, gert korthof :|
I mean by 'reciprocal' altruism, an equal or similar time investment.
Is your solution a non-Darwinian solution? Is it different from anything published sofar by biologists?
|21.05.2010 01:23, Matthew Turner from Japan :|
Dear Gert Korthof,
Firstly, thank you so much for replying. I've been ignored so many times that my faith in the objectivity of science is seriously faltering!
I should have guessed that many other people besides me must ask you for favours! I can think of only five ways to reply to your reciprocal altruism challenge:
(1) The strength of my book is the theory, and so I have deliberately made it as easy to read as possible. I have avoided academic language; there are almost no references; and biological examples are limited to a very few. The book is short, with the theoretical section completed in just 130 pages. The cost to you of reading it is thus quite small.
(2) I am sure you will find this a stimulating, exciting book to read, even if you ultimately deem it to be flawed in some way. It has entertainment value!
(3) Darwin's theory has caused me considerable intellectual pain - the pain of suspecting that something was not quite right but not being able to pin it down. The pain of coming up with a "solution" only to find it did not quite work. The confusion and discomfort of sensing contradictions or inconsistencies but not knowing where they lay. I now finally have intellectual peace, I finally feel that I understand in basic, fundamental terms what evolution is all about. Perhaps you will feel such peace after reading this book!
(4) I can avoid your challenge altogether by claiming that the conventional conception of "altruism" is actually flawed. But I have no room to explain that here (it's in the book).
(5) Please tell me if there is anything else I can offer! A quote from you and a reference to your website on the back cover of the book (there is still time to change the book design)? Fresh high-grade Japanese green tea or some other hard-to-get Japanese product as a gift of thanks?
If you don't mind, I would like to send you a copy of the book anyway, just in case you might one day feel inclined to look through it!
|20.05.2010 08:25, gert korthof :|
Dear Matthew Turner,
fast response (without checking anything):
I am moved by your story. I recognize a lot in it.
You address the right person with the right subject.
However, I am overloaded with stuff to read, and everybody asks favours from me, such as reading their new manuscript: it is always a non-reciprocal altruism affair. How could we transform this in reciprocal altruism? I scratch your back, you scratch mine :-)
|14.04.2010 09:23, gert korthof :|
Dank je wel Tjitske (mooie naam trouwens!),
de link heb ik toegevoegd.
Vraagje: lukte het niet om in het blog een comment toe te voegen? Geeft verder niet, het is zo ook gelukt.
|14.04.2010 07:44, Tjitske :|
Beste Gert Korthof,
Ik zie dat u verwijst naar mijn artikel over Wallace, leuk! De link leidt alleen niet naar het artikel, daarom hier de juiste verwijzing: http://beagle.vpro.nl/#/blog/i tem/3106/
|25.03.2010 07:41, gert korthof :|
I am going to find the issue of Nature online.
|23.03.2010 17:49, Tim Standish from Loma Linda, CA, USA :|
I see an error in what I just sent. The Nature volume number is 294, not 291.
|23.03.2010 17:46, Tim Standish from Loma Linda, CA, USA :|
A minor error exists at:
In a reference listed under "Notes" related to Fred Hoyle's remark about biological evolution and a 747 in a junk yard.
The correct complete reference is:
1981. Hoyle on evolution. Nature 291:105.
Note that the page is 105, not 10 and that no author is listed.
Thanks for such a useful summary of literature related to this remark of Hoyle's.
|16.03.2010 17:15, Manhar Tilak from Crossville TN USA :|
Manohar Tilak the 1970 Originator of The Evoluon Theory of Cosmic Evolution and the 1998 book Infnities to Eternities, who was a member of Professor Katsoyanis's Insulin Synthess, write that he had substantively orignated the word Evoluon.
There are exactly 8 Evoluons based on cosmic Information systems in the chart after pg. 58 of his 1998 book.
am drawn to your valuable work about Evolution and am grateful!
|17.02.2010 07:35, gert korthof :|
Thank you for your message.
I started reading the review of your book in American Scientist yesterday and will finish it today and reread it again.
Yes, indeed I like Sedley's book very much.
And I am now in the middle of reading Fodor and writing a review. (I blogged in Dutch about the book already once).
I will add your book to the Introduction page of my site.
Thanks for writing me,
have a nice day,
|16.02.2010 14:24, John Reiss from Arcata, CA, USA :|
I ran across your very interesting site looking for reviews of Fodor and Piatelli-Palmerini's new book - "What Darwin Got Wrong." I have not yet seen their book, but in the meantime, would like to call your attention to my own, which I think might interest you. It is called "Not by Design; Retiring Darwin's Watchmaker" and was published by Univ of Calif Press last year. There is a very nice review (to me) that just came out in American Scientist by John Dupré, which you can find at: http://www.americanscientist.o
Since you seemed to like Sedley's perspective offered in his "Creationism and its Critics in Antiquity" I think you will find that my book goes further in relating Darwin to the ancient debate between the atomists and the teleologists. In my view, as we move toward an extended evolutionary synthesis, what is most needed is to purge Darwinism not of the mechanism of natural selection, but of the teleological views that Darwin inherited from Paley.
|01.02.2010 09:42, gert korthof :|
Beste Frietson Galis,
hartelijk dank voor Uw reactie.
Uiteraard heb ik de link naar Uw nieuwe website op mijn site geupdated (Ned. evolutie literatuur).
|31.01.2010 18:49, Frietson Galis :|
Beste meneer Korthof,
Heel goed wat u doet met uw site.
Ik vond tot mijn verrassing een link naar mijn homepage. Aangezien helaas bij de reorganisatie van biologie in Leiden de evolutiebiologie is getroffen en met het opheffen van de theoretische evolutiebiologie ook mijn functie is opgeheven, is mijn website verdwenen. Ik heb uiteraard nu een externe website, echter. de universiteit weigert ons permanente redirects. Ik zou het daarom erg op prijs stellen als u de link zou willen vervangen naar mijn nieuwe website:
Veel succes met uw website
|12.01.2010 19:59, Dalius Balciunas from Vilnius, Lithuania :|
I have some comments regarding Kauffman's ideas. Let's begin with one of your sentences. You write (http://home.planet.nl/~gkortho f/kortho32.htm; 2.Neo-Darwinism is incomplete):
"Kauffman is not anti-Darwinist in the sense that he rejects the existence of natural selection".
I find it interesting statement. And I think it is not correct. To support Darwin you have to reject natural selection theory. Biologists simply are unable to accept such a challenge. My motto - natural selection theory is wrong, Darwin was right.
Indeed Darwin was the first who presented scientific theory of life evolution. Darwin understood the essence of the matter. Modifications and "natural selection" are driving force of evolution. Natural selection theory, as Darwin presented it, was revolutionary idea. However, this theory is a product of 19th century. Now, I think, it is no more valid. Autocatalysis (self-replication) itself explains why biological evolution has taken place. Autocatalytic competition is "natural selection".
Thus, Kauffman is right concentrating on autocatalytic processes. Unfortunately, he did not go one step further and did not reject natural selection hypothesis.
Thank you for very interesting site.
|10.12.2009 05:38, Derek Roche from Australia :|
This is to advise the launch of a new website (http://thewayitis.info) that proposes a formal synthesis of all knowledge and all ways of knowing. The origin and evolution of life is shown to be a logical consequence of such a synthesis. Your critical assessment is cordially invited.
|23.10.2009 07:11, gert korthof :|
Hello Nadeem from Pakistan,
what page of my site did you read?
What kind of photo do you want?
Thanks for visiting my site,
|22.10.2009 13:58, nadeem from pakistan :|
please send me chromosome photo
|18.10.2009 09:01, gert korthof :|
I am confused by your claim.
The picture does have a clickable link to
where I found the image (I suppose).
Didn't you notice that?
So, I am unsure what to do. For the moment I will put
your name below the picture.
PS when I google for 'orchid mantis' images you are number 5 (with a different picture) and my site is nr 10 (with the picture you talk about).
PS2 How did you make the picture? Is it at home or in the wild?
|18.10.2009 07:59, Peter Clausen from USA :|
You are using my orchid mantis photos without permission. As much as I may support what you are doing, you have not asked to use it. It is located in the mimicry section on the following link on your website:
Unfortunatly, for me, your site is the primary reference for this photo as listed on the images directory of the google search engine. This is unfair to me since I took that photo in 2001 and posted it on my site. I would appreciate it if you would make the photo a clickable link to my website at the very least.
|Page: < 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 >||
|Get free forums, guestbooks, calendars, shorturls and web statistics at motigo.|