New Research Suggests that Diversity in Dogs Comes from the Wolf's DNA

The one genetic study of any weight that gave people the idea that dogs evolved from wolves is the work of Robert K. Wayne of UCLA back in 1995. Specifically, he studied a singular locus of mtDNA (mytochondrial DNA) and found a less than 2 percent difference between wolves and dogs. But that's not enough to say that dogs evolved from wolves. There are plenty of other peer-reviewed papers out there that dispute that and point out that dog, in structure and behavior, is closer to the coyote but not necessarily evolved from them. Also what is missing from your post (which is more about "psychology" than actual physical data, albeit) is the structural differences. Specifically, for example, the coronoid process in the zygomatic arch. Specifically, the hinge of a wolf mandible is a jagged triangle and that of a dog is a simple recurve to the rear. This allows, partially, some looser mastication in dogs than in wolves. Socially, dogs are quite different from wolves. Wolves do not form numerous, uncountable social bonds. Dogs do, and with different species, as well. Some may attribute that to neoteny but that has yet to be proven. What is more accurate, evolution wise, is that dogs and wolves evolved from a common canid ancestor and that is how the theory use to run. In fact, it was also theorized that there were two types of prototypical canids.

To provide a simile, it has long been considered that the difference between man and chimpanzee is less than 2 percent. But what a difference that 2 percent makes. Nor is it implied or even believed that we evolved from chimpanzees. It is far more accurate to say that we evolved from common simian ancestors. I don't have a problem explaining, and have done so in the past, that I view man zoologically as a great ape (because of height, which may have quite a bit to do with walking on our hind legs.) A relatively hairless, bipedal ape (I got that description from C.S. Lewis in his book, "The Screwtape Letters." A rather piquant phrase.) There are a few similarities among the primates. For example, there is aggression in chimps. There is aggression in humans. But we didn't necessarily get it from them. It might just be a "primate thing."

What dogs have that humans and wolves don't have is such a flexible DNA for appearance and size. It's like watching evolution on speed. However, it doesn't affect social behavior. Great Dane and Chihuahua act the same. That is the one thing most humans don't get. Dogs have a way of reacting to each other that is regardless of size and strength.

And, it has never been proven or even theorized that the silver fox evolved from the wolf. So the studies of domesticating silver foxes really just illustrates how dog became domesticated. And your article is missing a mention of the New Guinea Singing Dog as an example of prototypical dog. Almost analogous to the Dingo, the NGSD can still live wild but is friendly to humans.

Granted, I know you have to concentrate and focus the article to be in the proper format and length for publication but I hope you can explore these other data and viewpoints, rather than just one avenue that supports just one theory.

Hi Ron,

You provide many good, solid points and food for thought, as usual. 

ron2

Also what is missing from your post (which is more about "psychology" than actual physical data) is the structural differences. Specifically, for example, the coronoid process in the zygomatic arch. Specifically, the hinge of a wolf mandible is a jagged triangle and that of a dog is a simple recurve to the rear. This allows, partially, some looser mastication in dogs than in wolves. Socially, dogs are quite different from wolves. Wolves do not form numerous, uncountable social bonds. Dogs do, and with different species, as well. Some may attribute that to neoteny but that has yet to be proven. What is more accurate, evolution wise, is that dogs and wolves evolved from a common canid ancestor and that is how the theory use to run. In fact, it was also theorized that there were two types of prototypical canids.

There's a lot missing from my article! Obviously dogs have been under different selection pressures, some natural, most related to human intervention. One result, for example, is that the mandible of a pug is quite different from that of a Doberman. And you're right. The differences in social adaptability between dogs and wolves is enormous. However, wolf packs are capable of adding new members when necessary. But their social adaptability is directly related to the pack's need to hunt large prey, which, I think, reinforces my position that the wolf's prey drive is what enabled dogs to expand exponentially on the wolf's much smaller window of social adaptability.

ron2

To provide a simile, it has long been considered that the difference between man and chimpanzee is less than 2 percent. But what a difference that 2 percent makes. Nor is it implied or even believed that we evolved from chimpanzees. It is far more accurate to say that we evolved from common simian ancestors.

Absolutely. And that link goes back about 65 million years or so. The link between dogs and wolves probably goes back 250,000 years at most. (There are various theories, and various bits of math on this.) This makes the comparison that Dunbar and others have made between humans & chimps and dogs & wolves all the more sketchy.

ron2

What dogs have that humans and wolves don't have is such a flexible DNA for appearance and size. It's like watching evolution on speed. However, it doesn't affect social behavior. Great Dane and Chihuahua act the same. That is the one thing most humans don't get. Dogs have a way of reacting to each other that is regardless of size and strength.

Actually, wolves do have the same capacity for flexibility. That's what's most interesting about this new data. The same mechanisms that have created so many breeds with so much variability in domesticated dogs are found in the wolf's DNA as well. What's clear to me, if not to others, is that the dog's evolution (heavily influenced by human interactions, of course) has made great use of those mechanisms while in wolf evolutionary they seem to have lain dormant all this time. I don't know if there's any way, scientifically speaking, to link the insertional mutations and slippage mutations directly to the wolf's social and emotional flexibility when hunting large prey, but I (obviously) think the two have to be connected in some way.

ron2

And, it has never been proven or even theorized that the silver fox evolved from the wolf. So the studies of domesticating silver foxes really just illustrates how dog became domesticated. And your article is missing a mention of the New Guinea Singing Dog as an example of prototypical dog. Almost analogous to the Dingo, the NGSD can still live wild but is friendly to humans.

Well, just like the human/chimp connection, the connection between foxes and wolves goes back much further than that between wolves and dogs (and coyotes). We could go back 65 million years to when the miacadae split off into proto-felids and proto-canids, and we see what we come up with, but I don't think anyone is interested in doing that just yet with dog or wolf DNA.

As for the New Guinea singing dog, it seems to me like it might be an N of one. I could be wrong. But I don't have enough knowledge about how it fits into the larger picture to have brought it into the current discussion.

ron2

Granted, I know you have to concentrate and focus the article to be in the proper format and length for publication but I hope you can explore these other data and viewpoints, rather than just one avenue that supports just one theory.

All very true. However, the point of my article is to say, "Look at this! Yes, the Coppinger's theory is based on solid arguments. And yes, the wolf-model of training, as practiced by Millan and the Monks of New Skete, is full of holes. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater on the idea that dogs are, at heart, group predators; those kinds of instincts and tendencies don't just disappear overnight. And that the real wolf model - meaning that wolves are one of only two species of land mammal who hunt large, dangerous prey (humans are the other) - may be an important key to the evolution of the incredibly flexible and adaptable social behaviors we see in dogs.

In essence, what I'm proposing is a version of Premack's principle, only seen from an evolutionary point of view.

LCK

Lee Charles Kelley

All very true. However, the point of my article is to say, "Look at this! Yes, the Coppinger's theory is based on solid arguments. And yes, the wolf-model of training, as practiced by Millan and the Monks of New Skete, is full of holes. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater on the idea that dogs are, at heart, group predators; those kinds of instincts and tendencies don't just disappear overnight. And that the real wolf model - meaning that wolves are one of only two species of land mammal who hunt large, dangerous prey (humans are the other) - may be an important key to the evolution of the incredibly flexible and adaptable social behaviors we see in dogs.

 

And I can conditionally agree on that within some perspective. Human and wolves can hunt in groups, requiring social cohesion, to bring down big game. However, there are other examples of lone hunting, depending on survival pressures. Coyotes, as a rule don't hunt in packs, though they can and have, often luring pet dogs out and then killing them. But, coyotes, also a rule, don't hunt animals larger than themselves, preferring to scavenge off of wolf kills. As opposed to humans and wolves taking down a bison. Also, dogs don't necessarily go after big prey. My dog has had his share of cotton rats and squirrels. But an encounter with a few benign cows had him turn tail and run back to me, literally. Even though he is fast enough and big enough to take down an ungulate. He would more likely give it a wide berth and prefer to go after maybe a jack rabbit or wild hare. What is also missing is that he doesn't always know what to do with a kill. With cotton rats, easily bitten through, he eats them. But with squirrels, I have found some squished and dead but not a puncture on them. Then, again, he doesn't have the survival pressure to figure out how to eat a squirrel. Why? In a few hours I will be home and the food comes easily, either in general feeding or obedience work, which is physically easier than pursuing.

Dogs can form a pack against what they see as an aggressor. But I think it's a canid thing and not necessarily a dogs evolved from wolves thing.

 

ron2

Lee Charles Kelley

let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater on the idea that dogs are, at heart, group predators; those kinds of instincts and tendencies don't just disappear overnight. And that the real wolf model - meaning that wolves are one of only two species of land mammal who hunt large, dangerous prey (humans are the other) - may be an important key to the evolution of the incredibly flexible and adaptable social behaviors we see in dogs.

My dog has had his share of cotton rats and squirrels. But an encounter with a few benign cows had him turn tail and run back to me, literally. Even though he is fast enough and big enough to take down an ungulate. He would more likely give it a wide berth and prefer to go after maybe a jack rabbit or wild hare. What is also missing is that he doesn't always know what to do with a kill.

 

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your comments. You make some good points.

In response, when your dog got scared by a cow, that's understandable. However, the fact that he ran back to you is what's really under discussion. The domesticated dog's ability to form strong social bonds with human beings is directly related to the wolf's prey drive.

True, most wild dogs (feralized domesticated dogs) don't know how to hunt large prey. There is some data on the wild dogs of Tuscany showing a) that they don't form rigid hierarchies, and b) they're not very good at hunting large prey.

However, they do try...

I would also disagree with Coppinger's idea that because dog's don't always exhibit what is supposedly the final behavior in the predatory chain -- dissecting the dead animal -- because I don't see that as part of the hunt. It's what happens after the search, the stalk, the chase, the grab bite and the kill bite.

LCK

 

 

The domesticated dog's ability to form strong social bonds with human beings is directly related to the wolf's prey drive.

 

Says who?

LCK

The domesticated dog's ability to form strong social bonds with human beings is directly related to the wolf's prey drive.

 

 My readings of the academic literature and general observations of training practitioners indicates that socialization is in opposition to prey drive.

 

 Seriously, LCK, as central as this assumption is to the whole framework of your NDT energy theory of dogs, it is incumbent on you to support this claim with references from the canine behavioral research literature.  Quoting your own blog, or Jack Field, is clearly insufficient in such a task.

 And if you cannot find such scientific reference to defend your unscientific NDT theory, please turn your uber-critical keyboard, so eagerly directed at professionals like Bekoff, Coren, Hauser, McConnell, et. al. upon yourself.  

 But then again, you lack the academic credentials to be considered a peer among such professionals, don't you.  And furthermore, no one has embarked on scientific research that verifies any of the myriad 'novel' suppositions of NDT. 

 The unsubstantiated claim about socialization and prey drive, absent any scientific support, challenges the validity of anything predicated of NDT.  Opinions are fine, but they are not to be confused with fact.  You may continue to ignore such challenges to your posts here at the dog forums, but the credibility of your statements will likewise remain in profound doubt.

Lee Charles Kelley

discussion. The domesticated dog's ability to form strong social bonds with human beings is directly related to the wolf's prey drive.

I would also disagree with Coppinger's idea that because dog's don't always exhibit what is supposedly the final behavior in the predatory chain -- dissecting the dead animal -- because I don't see that as part of the hunt. It's what happens after the search, the stalk, the chase, the grab bite and the kill bite.

Let me start by saying that I agree partially. Whether a dog knows or what to do with killed prey does not take away from the hunt being a prey drive thingy.

Where I disagree is the assumption that the dog gets this from the wolf because it has not yet been proven that dog descended from wolf. There's no austrolepithicus for wolf to dog, so to speak. Even wolves are not in the same form or size as early prototypical canids. Of the two prototypes, what became wolves came from a canid 2 to 3 times the size of the current gray wolf. And what became smaller canids such as foxes and coyotes came from a smaller, more agile canid that also had more omniverous tendencies. The bigger canid died out because it wasn't a fast runner. As ungulates such as deer and antelope evolved to faster runners, the big, slow canid died out but smaller ones, closer to the size of the gray wolf that could average 40 mphs for 10 minutes survived because they could run fast enough for just long enough to catch the faster prey.

But nothing in your articles or even in evolution, both radially adaptive and non-radially adaptive theories has proven that link.

And there in lies another distinction. Radial adaptation states that a creature evolves something in response to survival pressure. This has yet to be proven and, btw, it was not the intent of Darwin's work to state such. What is just as likely and explains much more is non-radial adaptation. An organism mutates. In fact, every generation produces mutations. Anyway. Generation x has a mutation that allows it to survive better and longer and breed better and more proficiently. Eventually, that mutation becomes the dominant trait in genetic survival. Organisms that don't have the mutation die out, as a species or version of a species. We are the way we are because we have mutations that allow us to survive the environment better than neanderthal and that's why we don't have neanderthals anymore, except in geico commercials.

Believe me, I don't have a religious objection or anything like that to dogs evolving from wolves, I just don't see the evidence of such. But many others have believed in it because it fits in a paradigm that they prefer. To me, that's bad science, at best, creative fantasy. And it seems to me that, in your articles and postings, it is an assumption that conveniently fits, generally, into some of your theory but is not scientific proof of your theory.

I also understand that you are trying to say that dog's social bonding with human is a side-effect of the social behavior of canids that hunt successfully by social cooperation and you may be right and that would be one of the easiest, simplest explanations. Saying that it comes from wolves is where I draw the distinction and think that's a little too much salad from one leaf of lettuce.

Just as likely, dogs are social creatures, with a higher evolved social level because of their interaction with humans, which started with the mutations of dog that could eat human leftover food and digest it and the mutation of them interacting socially with creatures outside of their species. Socially interacting to the point that they take cues from us and let us do problem-solving, something wolves do not do. So, while social behavior in canids might be general, what dogs do, across species, would be something more singular to dogs, owing to specific mutation in evolution. He who gets the resources, survives. You have to eat, you have to breed.

Also, to address neoteny. That is used to describe dog behavior as equivalent to an eternal wolf cub. That might work as an ad hoc description but it contains the inherent assumption that dog descended from wolf, which is still not proven. It would be more accurate to say that dogs exhibit the social behavior analogous to what is seen in wolf cubs, though it is not proof of an evolutionary line. It is a canid thing, not necessarily a wolf thing, in so many words.

So, what I see in your theories is not so much scientific proof as I see careful selection of bits of data, assumptions, and perspective shifts to explain something a different way but not always accurate or applicable. In essence, defining a theory and finding ways to fit evidence to fit that theory, rather than always objective data analysis and theorizing for that data.

But you are in good company. Einstein built a theory and used lorentzian transforms (such as l' = (l / (1 - v^2/c^2))) to mash data to fit the theory. Certain politically connected professors decided that man is heating up the planet and changed data to match that (climategate, specifically the info from the Hadley CRU at the University of East Anglia in England, primary source for data for the IPCC climate reports.) In addition, the intimidated dissenting scientists with threats of physical harm and censure. But I digress. Nor am I implying that you are like those fellows. Just saying that there is a temptation to filter data to fit a theory, when it should be the other way around. Collect data, form theory. If new data shows flaw in theory, adjust theory or scrap it and start a new one. At least Einstein had that going for him, even if it turned out to be wrong, or more accurately, partly wrong. And later, he succumbed to the problem of fitting data to match theory.

There are times when I think you are close to finding a real answer and other times that I am not so sure.

 

 ron2

 

 I do not suppose LCK will respond to my challenge to the most important supposition of NDT: that prey drive is the cause of human-canine socialization toward a 'group mind', as it is bombastic. 

 If you wish to judge the merits of this most fundamental NDT/LCK tenet, see the official take on the matter here 

http://naturaldogtraining.com/blog/evolution-of-a-group-mind/

 

You'll surely see why LCK cannot defend his NDT beliefs.

Hey, Burl. When I suggest that LCK might have some good points, it's not acceptance of his whole theory but an interest in what actual scientific evidence he might come across. Such as the half-done dopamine study. Even if it eventually doesn't support his theory or any other, at least you have an avenue that is no longer valid and we learn as much from our mistakes, at times, as we do from our successes.

I read the article you linked. And there is no proof in the article for the summations contained therein. Peeing on the moosehead is not a desire to socially connect or an expression of quantum wave theory (again, trying to tie in QM in a haphazard way, as has happened in other explanations of this theory) it is a survival trait. Marking one's resources. In fact, not one thing in the article can be proved and I find the summations to be inaccurate or wholly wrong, in some perspectives. Peeing on the moosehead is not a sexual connection, as is suggested in the article. Methinks there's a little too much Freud in the theory. Granted, even I can reduce dog behavior to survival and progeneration of self and species but moreso in a causal direction. Surviving by guarding and consuming resources in order to progenerate. Not the other way around. I'm not sure that canids are seeing reproduction as a social activity motivator as humans like to think of themselves as doing. Even though I have said as much in describing male human behavior, sometimes as a humorous description of the difference between human males and females.

I also think it's dichotomous to say that dogs are socializing in a way that describes humans or even human theology and then, in another breath, say that dogs don't have ToM or other soi-disant "human" attributes. I think the reason for that is because ToM doesn't fit this theory, right now. If it did, there would be more articles showing that link.

That is, to say that dogs are connecting on a quantum wave level of sexual "energy" is theology, in my opinion. We don't even know if that happens in ourselves, though it might be a nice allegory that explains some things, sometimes.

Then, again, I have noted the Doberman Pincher that played with a collection of human dolls and arranged them in geometric patterns as well as social positions important to humans and wondered what this said of dog thought, including ToM. So, it's possible that dogs could have some social connection with reproductive activity though I don't know that and I'm not trying to prove that and I'm not sure what good is accomplished by either proof or disproof. It would have to be born by evidence, not semantics. So back to Occam. The dog has some thought processes, possibly ToM and that's about as accurate as we can get, for now.

I would also normally agree that dogs do not have conscious control over their reproductive urges as humans do. Until I knew of our friend's Great Pyrenees, Lilli. Lilli now lives as a livestock guardian dog on a sheep ranch. And they have a few other GP's there, as well, male, intact. Lilli will not allow them to mount her. So, there's some evidence that cannot be discounted, no matter how inconvenient it is to some pet theories, including my own predilection toward sterilization of pets as good pet or working animal husbandry. Just because one dog does not allow herself to be bred does not mean that all dogs will do that. It may very well be a mutation of behavior that will eventually stop her line of GP's. Ranchers will still cut their bulls, except for the one they use for breeding. Live with it.

On the whole, I can't agree with anything in this article, at the outset.

And probably another way of saying what I am saying is that dogs are not as dumb as we think they are and we are not as smart as we think we are. And dogs do what they do for survival. So do humans. We may talk in terms of psychology or even human intelligence but might such behavior be nothing more than buzzes, grunts, and whistles (thanks, Heinlein) that provide some sort of social cohesion that rewards our survival or, in non-radial adaptation, hasn't yet been shown to be counter to our survival?

 ron2

I think that after consuming the 'theories' promulgated by NDTists, I get quite angry with their freedom to flippantly dismiss any other scientific findings or training practices they choose, yet,  in the case of LCKs posts, there is freedom to postulate preposterous claims that amount to a form of spamming - that is, one way delivery of mis-information.

For every dog forum member who has offered opposition to any specific NDT supposition from his plethora of PT blog double-posts here, their corrections or rejections have been carefully dodged or else go uncharacteristically unaddressed.  Meanwhile, LCK's energetic and often sneering attacks on non-NDTist continue to get posted here and at PT.

 

So again, I will point out to LCK that in NDT, the most important concept is that non-conscious energetic-zombie canid entities have a prey drive that compels them to socialize with us.  But most behaviorists and trainers view it oppositely - low drive dogs are more sociable; high drive, less.  In essence, NDT mistakes the instinct to survive by eating as some sort of physics of psycho-sexual connectivity.

 

NDT's big slogans, 'be the moose', and 'keep on pushing' (where you represent your dog's meals) ARE NOT what comes to mind for most of us when we want to form bonds with our dogs.

Burl

For every dog forum member who has offered opposition to any specific NDT supposition from his plethora of PT blog double-posts here, their corrections or rejections have been carefully dodged or else go uncharacteristically unaddressed.  Meanwhile, LCK's energetic and often sneering attacks on non-NDTist continue to get posted here and at PT.

 

So again, I will point out to LCK that in NDT, the most important concept is that non-conscious energetic-zombie canid entities have a prey drive that compels them to socialize with us.  But most behaviorists and trainers view it oppositely - low drive dogs are more sociable; high drive, less.  In essence, NDT mistakes the instinct to survive by eating as some sort of physics of psycho-sexual connectivity.

 

Hi

I guess that it is a little difficult. I accept LCK’s approaches with good humour. It must be that Pyschology today is either poorly edited or is the amateur equivalent of the many publications that surround my industry.  I wouldn’t  bother taking anything much that they say too seriously because if i did i would work myself into a breakdown. Again i try and keep communication open by not making a complete a**** of myself.

An example is his use of a reference to Shannon’s theorem in a posting on pattern recognition.

 For reference , Wikipedia isn’t too far off http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noisy-channel_coding_theorem. I would generally check it line for line but it is slightly outside my field of interest and would frankly require too much effort.

Trying to explain Shannon’s to an audience without significant maths and stats background is well nigh impossible. Even then it is quite difficult. I just let it fly by and keep a wry smile on my face. J

My industry has a bad habit of using terms that don’t quite mean what you think they mean.  Feedback and feedforward  are a bit different than you think they are. There is another principal here which is important to in this conversation which is Causality. Again when i have time i will relate it to dog training.

To explain these terms takes books. You can’t write books on forums.  To even try and have a debate based on such a ludicrous use of the term is a waste of  time and quite destructive. I guess that you just have to let it be and marvel at the diversity of the human race. :)

 

Well, Burl, you summed it up in a nutshell, as it were. The problems I am having with theory is selective use of data. In simile, the interpretation of Robert K. Wayne's work on one locus of mtDNA being 98 percent similar totally ignores the fact that the rest of the genetic picture is nowhere as close. It's not even sure what that locus controls, whether that's general shape, social behavior, or the difference between independent wolf and neotenous dog. Even so, the difference is enough to make them different species, just as Man and chimp share a 98 percent genetic heritage, more genes in common than dogs and wolves, yet we are truly different species.

A whole mountain made out of a suspect molehill is the image that comes to mind. I'm not sure how many more metaphors and similes I can come up with. But what is also happening in these articles is essentially rule number one of debating tactics, which have nothing to do with science or the scientific method. Rule number one, he who controls the language controls the debate. It is practiced every day in politics. Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer called wars or even military actions. They are "overseas contigency plans."

And to be fair, "no child left behind" guarantees that some children will not be able to compete in college or the work world because the educational standards have been lowered to allow more students to "graduate" and improve the schools' ratings. So, the children are turned out with less educational success than we had. But I digress.

And maybe I'm uncomfortable with the idea that the dog socializing with us comes from a psycho-sexual wolf play. I love my dog, but not in that way. Nor do I see that a wolf bringing a food item to the pack as a root behavior for dogs socializing with man. I think dogs socialize with man because it benefits dogs. He who gets resources lives. I'm not against the idea that dogs are social creatures and wolves are social creatures, to an extent, within their own pack. But it must also be remembered that actual wolf packs are not groups of disparate wolves from all over voting on what's for potluck supper. They are usually extended families and, in good times, may include other wolves that tag along but not for long. It's a family and the lead female and male are the breeding pair. In the normal course of things, a wolf leaves the pack and finds another mate and starts their own. And that is from L. David Mech, a peer-reviewed researcher and author. And he learned that by sleeping out under the stars to watch wolves in their natural habitat.

Dogs, however, can form associations with strangers, many in their lifetimes, of differing species. Wolves do not lie down with the lambs. They eat them. Wolves do not run away from cows, they eat them. Just ask the ranchers bordering Yellowstone National Park.

The other problem I have with the article is the modelling based upon theories in QM that have yet to be proven. It could be tantamount to building on a house of cards. Nor is there any evidence, clinical, experimental, or empirical, that supports the theory.

Nor am I seeing any peer review from other researchers in animal behavior that either agree or disagree other than the one reference to a guy that expressly wants to "dismantle" OC. Just stating that shows an unscientific attitude. It show a prejudgement, a desire predestined and the goal is to fullfill that desire, rather than observe what is there. It's not science. I don't know if PT even publishes rebuttals. Most any actual scientific journal actually puts a paper through a peer review process before they even publish it. And when they do, it includes references or links to rebuttals, as well as offering dissenting scientists publication of their rebuttals, or even support and addition of research to the evidence, if any, of the theory.

Anyone can create any theory. And can design an equation to mash data into the theory. Why do I say that? Rev. Billy Graham once used the equation, 1^3 to denote how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost could really be one entity. Problem is, the general equation, 1^n also "proves" pantheism.

Rev. Billy Graham once used the equation, 1^3 to denote how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost could really be one entity. Problem is, the general equation, 1^n also "proves" pantheism.

Priceless, ron!


I agree with your observations on ‘salad bar science’ which is not condoned in the community of professional researchers, but then LCK is nowhere near being in the ranks of this professional community.  Cherry-picking articles from the literature to support your 'pet hunch du jour' is quickly shouted out in respectable scientific societies; whereas, amongst amateurs and/or pseudoscience organizations like PT, one might get away with it.  

 
Quantum Mechanics's role in animal consciousness is a speculative notion held by a TINY fraction of neuro-cognitive researchers who are considered wackos by the rest.  Its champion these days is Stuart Hameroff, an anesthesiologist at U of Arizona.  To learn his ideas of tiny tubes in synapses that ‘might’ be small enough to be impacted by QM theory, you may see his entire talk below.  To see only the backlash, jump to the Q&A.

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-science-religion-reason-and-survival/session-4-1

 
Hameroff is a disciple of the New Age cult leader, Ramtha. This cult includes a handful of ex-professors of physics, as well as a mix of social scientists.  They made a movie, ‘What the Bleep do We Know’  Some of the ‘scientists’ involved are here
 
http://www.whatthebleep.com/scientists/


NDT wants to reduce all phenomena in the universe to laws of physics, hence the emphasis on energy.  Such deterministic reductionism even has a philosopher champion in Daniel Dennett (a hero of LCK’s blogs).  Dennett’s views on non-conscious animals are quite controversial amongst his peers. 

Anyway, seeking physicists who might hold notions compatible with the ‘energy/spirit’ hunch, the NDTists naturally latched on to the ‘quantum consciousness’ of the Ramtha movement (perhaps unaware of its cult roots).

 poodleowner, I just saw your comments and wholly agree.

 

  Once I feel enough attention has been raised on this matter, I'll let it go to the group's discretion - I just want the records to contain a factual rebuttal to sloppy pseudoscience by uncredentialed purveyors.

 

At bottom, it really isn't my problem, anyway.