Essence of Fauceir Evolution

Here go some quotes:

Evolution is not just about species [1] but includes all types of fauceirs [that form resources PN].

Evolution is not just about natural selection [2] but a set of optimization rules [including decotectulization and adaptation, for instance PN].

—– Mato Nagel
[addendum by the author]

[1] Darwin, Charles, 2008, On the Origin of Species. Rev. ed. Oxford World’s Classics. New York: Oxford University Press. (

[2] Wallace, Alfred Russel,1870,Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection. A Series of Essays. London, New York: Macmillan and co. (

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at


Evolution is an ideological question

And it has been one ever since. The forefathers of the theory of natural selection Darwin and Wallace had been so impressed by rapid social progress during the English Industrial Revolution that was attributed to free market competition, so they declared competition as a universal principle to assure progress in nature. Their opponents dreamed of consolidating feudalistic structures and envied all social progress as it threatens their traditional positions. Those opponents neglected scientific discoveries and social progress and propagated creationism or intelligent design instead. The balance of power between these two camps has held stable for years, but now a third camp significantly gains importance.

The ever growing crew of scholars in university’s ivory towers, who adapt an intermediate position.

Ostensibly, they oppose the unscientific views of creationism but ideologically they are close to it. This scholastic camp comprises well tenured professors in biology who are not at all interested to change the system that feeds them so well. They would not allow for free competition that eventually threatens their position. Instead besides the mandatory fusillades against creationists (they have to convince the taxpayers of their usefulness in the above mentioned balance of power), the main goal is to keep everything unchanged. Some grant application competition here, some cronyism there, but never as challenging questions. For instance the question how all this is related to progress.

Progress for them is a precarious issue, so it is best to sweepingly deny it. They even deny it in evolution which is in stark contrast to the forefathers of evolutionary theory. Wallace and Darwin rather naively believed that natural selection brings about not only genetic adaptation but also progress. That it doesn’t work as easy was welcome news to those scholastics who simply declare evolution is nothing about progress but adaption, but how evolution creates complex organisms, such as mammals, from simple ones, such as bacteria, remains obscure. The same as with creationism.

For those who like graphical representation, the position of the scholastic evolutionary theory, the real scientific evolutionary theory, and creationism is depicted here.

Please also see my blog entry here.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

An other Comment on Memes

This is a re-posted comment on an article to be found here.

Thank you for this crash course in meme theory and its historical background. I couldn’t afford neither time nor money to read Dawkin’s books, and I don’t think it is necessary any more as so many repercussions are available for free in the meantime.

Please allow to summarize this article as follows:
Definition: Meme is a specific psychological fauceir that exhibits replicator properties.

The invention of memes in times of bursting information technology was consequential. The similarities between memes and genes are striking. Both posses unique replicator properties, but replication needs a complex machinery to take place. In case of genes, this is accomplished by a host of proteins; in case of memes, storage and communication devices are needed. And namely these devices developed rapidly in the second half of the last century, so memes became abundant and obvious.

As with gene theory of evolution, the meme theory’s problem remains that all the plausible explanations of evolution require that complex replicator machinery at work. Fauceir Theory easily can solve this problem by extending the study of evolution to fauceirs that do not provide replicator properties.

Fauceir Theory is around for about the same time as meme theory, and it explains evolution in even more general and abstract terms. As with meme theory, people seem not to be terribly keen on it. Fauceir Theory seems not to be an infectious meme actually 😉 but this is not surprising or even disappointing. On the contrary, it can be predicted by fauceir rules that an advanced fauceir, an advanced meme in this case, needs time to gain acceptance.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Epistemology of Evolutionary Theory – The Fauceir Stance

This is actually a comment to a comment. Because it became so extensive, I decided to post it separately.

Still trapped in the classical evolutionary theory, you believe that selection is the only mechanism that controls evolution. It was a great discovery by Wallace, not by Darwin as a matter of fact, that a stochastical process, such as natural selection, is capable to control evolution, but now we know there exist other stochastical processes, too. And it can be even proved that natural selection is not a homogeneous process. This paper provides some idea.

Distinguishing two classes, selective and non-selective (neutral) processes in case of evolutionary theory, is a crucial step, but it is merely the first step towards a more comprehensive theory of evolution. The advancement of the evolutionary theory is an epistomological process, and epistemology, in more general terms, can be understood as an evolutionary process itself to which Fauceir Theory is applicable, so please allow to explain the development of the evolutionary theory in fauceir terms.

Lets start with some analogies that illustrate that the first step in comprehending the worlds complexity is to construct a black-and-white discrimination:

  1. A child learning to comprehend the world by dividing things in bad and good.
  2. Marx starting to analyze social processes by describing two classes exploiter and worker.
  3. The trial and error experiment.
  4. Bit set or not set in computer science.

Well, and if you want a more plausible biological example, take the faculty of seeing. The most primitive visual organs can distinguish between light on and off. More sophisticated organisms can discriminate light intensities, colors (wave lengths), or even, with the help of some memory, motions.

In analogy, the epistemological process that happens to evolutionary theory now is that differentiation between selectively neutral and non-neutral control processes. But appreciating fauceir theory adds the whole spectrum of intensities.

I hope I found some colleagues to discuss this topic seriously and to publish it eventually.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Irremediable Complexity – The Fauceir Perspective

This article published in Science is a remakable step towards general acceptance of fauceir theory.

What are the points of intersection and were fauceir theory extends the concept.

  1. Yes, ratchets whether on the level of organelles or macromolecular complexes as mentioned by this paper are in fact fauceirs that evolve as such.
  2. Yes, natural selection happens, but only at the level of a particulat fauceir.


  1. No, these changes are not neutral. They are stochastical but still directional. That can be proved.
  2. No, these observations are not limited to evolution of cellular complexity, but also tissues, organs, populations, even societies.

Creative Commons License

This work by Paul Netman is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.

Fauceir theory is developed and © by Mato Nagel and available at

Being consistently rational

Being consistently rational includes being an atheist—right. Next, the most forceful atheists are heretics who cling to demons or aliens—plausible as this has also been propagated by theists for centuries. Therefore pagans worshipping the devil consider themselves rational, though they are the most irrational of all.

Just an other example. Rationalists favour Darwinian evolutionary theory. The most fervent proponents bitterly fight creationism and any other deviations thereby denying that some thousand years ago the idea that the world has been created was a great achievement compared to what existed before, and they also deny that Dawins’s theory already became out-dated, and in doing so they deny evolution of human thoughts and ideas—an irrational position again.

Conclusion. Being rational is the attitude to permanently question the own position in the light of new evidence and to be tolerant of other people’s believes even if they are not. It is being like Jesus has been some 2000 years ago. Oh, I know it appears to be a blaspheming position to all faithful though irrational rationalists.

Why Dinosaurs went extinct

Dinosaurs from Wikipedia

Evolutionary biologists discuss several theories, but the problem is a psychological one. As evolutionary biologists deny progress, they cannot draw a simple conclusion: As a rule, the dominance of the retarded dinosaurs had been undermined by more advanced mammals and birds. If this rule is accepted, it doesn’t matter any more too much which event actually caused extinction. There were probably several processes that contributed: shortage of food, diseases, and defeat in competition, for instance. Maybe catastrophic events accelerated these processes, but they didn’t cause them alone. That’s for sure.

Given the plasticity of all life forms, dinosaurs could have adapted to environmental changes even if catastrophic, but what they couldn’t adapt to were the already more adapted mammal competitors. As for instance, mammals and birds were able to maintain body temperature, they were capable to stay active at night, when dinosaurs became lazy and slow according to falling body temperature. In these situations dinosaurs became easy prey to mammals and birds.

If accepted, progress is able to explain a multitude of phenomena: In transportation, why we use diesel and electricity instead of steam engines, in technology, why we use to replace old and slow computers, in sociology, why slavery had to be replaced by feudalism and later on by capitalism, and in biology, why ferns had been replaced by angiosperms. As they instinctively block out any idea of progress, evolutionary biologists seek rescue in less scientific rather religious, biotheistic, explanations, in which catastrophic events play the role of a Deus ex Machina, a natural creator.