gsmith@cartan.UUCP (05/22/86)
In article <8300@kestrel.ARPA> king@kestrel.UUCP writes: >Evolution theory predicts that if it exists and is useful it would be >the norm as those with the ability would outbreed those without. >In short, every psi ability I have heard described would be >sufficiently useful in the paleolithic world that a person who claims >psi exists must explain why it is not the norm, like sight and >hearing. This is a good point (otherwise I wouldn't have thought of it too). But it doesn't prove the case. Other possibilities are: (1) Psi exists, but is so weak it is almost useless. (2) Psi exists, but it has just recently evolved and is slowly growing stronger. (3) Psi exists, but is always associated with other genetic factors which are negative. (4) Psi exists, but is not inheritable and so evolutionary theory does not apply. (If you think the last is impossible, assume like Sunny that souls exist and incarnate in bodies. Your argument then falls apart). ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 Fifty flippant frogs / Walked by on flippered feet And with their slime they made the time / Unnaturally fleet.
pete@valid.UUCP (Pete Zakel) (05/24/86)
> One question to those who claim the existence of psychicic phenomena: > > Evolution theory predicts that if it exists and is useful it would be > the norm as those with the ability would outbreed those without. Evolution theory predicts no such thing. Being useful doesn't cause one to outbreed. Being detrimental causes one to not live long enough to breed. Only if NOT having psi is detrimental would psi be selected for. > Who can deny the utility of the ability to detect a stalking tiger at a > distance? To cloud a prey animal's thinking to prevent him from > bolting? To know what lies under concealment? To perform telekinetic > manipulation? Yes, but what if psi is somewhat unreliable and requires training and a certain mindset to bring out. What if it doesn't work under normal stress but works well under EXTREME stress. You then wouldn't expect to see it except in optimal conditions. Also, considering precognition, what if there isn't *A* future, but *MANY POSSIBLE* futures. Then if on sees something bad in the future and manages to avoid it, that which is seen doesn't happen and becomes evidence AGAINST precognition, even though the precognition was actually USEFUL. -- -Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!pete)