Category Archives: science

Watson Out as Unit of Biological Mass

I guess ‘Watson’ is out as a name for the unit of biological mass with James’ comments that people of African decent are intellectually inferior to people of European decent. It always amazes me exactly how idiotic smart people can be. Pride is the devil’s favorite sin and it is my suspicion that people like James Watson and the old president of Harvard Larry Summers are guilty of it. It seems that they believe since they got where they were first, as old white men, that other people are somehow inferior.

What’s worse is that if James Watson can make such a mistake, I shudder to think how many others make it and how many others will use these comments to propagate messages of hate.

For the record this is one type of thing that I am trying to head off with my recent writings. If you understand that evolution is relative then you won’t use biology as a reason to claim superiority. You just can’t do it without contradicting relativistic principles. (update: I think an ethics paper is in my future to flesh this out a tad)

And these comments, if anything, just go to show how stupid old white men can be.

Posted in biology, evolution, news, Relativity, science. Tagged with , , , , , .

Blogged by The Philosophers’ Carnival #55, Sweet!

The Philosopher’s Carnival picked up my Relativity in Evolutionary Biology! Completely cool. And I won the shortest description contest- take that all you people who write things that can be summarized. And hyphenation to boot. Props to the editor who used an archaic device to help me out in lieu of delving into unruly philosophy of science sure to scare people.

It’s all relative
Noah Greenstein has written a well-worth-a-peek post on ‘Relativity in Evolutionary Biology’ here.

Posted in fitness, internet, philosophy, Relativity, science. Tagged with , , , .

General Relativity in Evolutionary Biology DRAFT

EDIT, July 2015:

See the full draft at the phil-sci archive:

Also check out my other Research.

Below are old notes:


I’ve discussed relativity in evolutionary biology with regards to uniform change but, as with the Special Theory of Relativity in physics, we want a theory that covers all change.

This means that insofar as relativity applies to biology under uniform motion, i.e. when a species is reproducing in a regular fashion, we want a theory of relativity that applies to biology even when a species is undergoing non-uniform motion, i.e. when the species reproductive cycle has undergone a serious change.

It is a fundamental equivalence of evolutionary biology that the struggle for survival and natural selection yield the exact same results.  This relationship has yet to be interpreted.  If we consider a person in love, financially secure and who wants nothing more than to raise children for foreseeable rest of his life.  That person may view this situation as the culmination of his struggle to survive and replicate.  That person may equally view the situation to be nature selecting him as suitable to continue life.

For what apparently are good reasons action at a distance is not allowed.  Struggle for survival does not occur at a distance; ‘struggle’ seems to inherently imply some local interaction.  Natural selection, however, is much more amorphous in nature: how exactly does nature select?  I suggest that we think of natural selection as a biofield that acts upon organisms.

Inertial ‘fitness’ and Gravitational ‘fitness’

The fitness of a thing creates a (teeny) natural selection field.  The fitness of a species creates a (small) natural selection field.  The fitness of an ecosystem creates a (large) natural selection field.

Posted in biology, fitness, General Relativity, philosophy, physics, Relativity, science, Special Relativity. Tagged with , , , , , .