Yeah, because you still haven’t mentioned a thing about how mutation works. You just keep asserting how alleged cases of it fit Darwinian selection.
Something something something and then the organism adapts.
You can’t even begin to address the things that I have proposed, because you don’t even understand the things that you propose. You are just repeating something you heard.
Pedro, Pood , did you at least saw my take on the relative importance of the significant difference between the political the bioethical aspect which pushed this disagreement into hyperdrive?
And this in the earlier stage of conceptual interpretation’s development?
Wouldn’t that have caught this disagreement in the bud?
You haven’t proposed anything, so there is nothing to address.
I have explained how mutations happen, and how natural selection operates on them.
Individual organisms do not “adapt.” Evolution works on populations and not on individuals.
Your lack of elementary education, and your arrogance in flaunting it, is remarkable in a way, but in another way, quite common for the trollverse known as the internet.
Does it now?
It only seems that way to you because I don’t mindlessly repeat what I heard in school.
I’m sure nothing that registered. You would have to know something about evolution and modern genetic theory.
You really have not, this is pathetic.
Operates on what, exactly?
Yes. Mutations happen in individuals, but before natural selection can operate on them they must spread through a population. As I have noted, though, neutral or even deleterious mutations, mutations not favored by a particular environment, can go to fixation by chance alone. This is called genetic drift.
It seems you never went to school, so there is nothing for you to repeat, mindlessly or otherwise.
Irony meter explodes.
Please reiterate what you “proposed.”
I have. Copying errors, radiation, viruses, chemicals. They are call mutagens.
Mutations.
What are mutations?
Now you’re just angry.
What are you daft? You don’t even know what a mutation is.
Yeah, you still haven’t said what a mutation is. You just name random shit. This is what they teach you in school?
Yeah, what are those?
A mutation is an alteration in the nucelotide sequence of a genome. I have already cited why such alterations happen.
I think you have to wonder what on earth is actually going on inside Pedro’s head. (If anything)
Ah I see, yet another one of your delusions.
No it does it energetically.
UV light is of particular interest.
Have you heard of sunscreen?
So I want to address the idea that evolution is a competitive struggle to survive and reproduce. According to this popular notion, the competitive struggle to survive and reproduce is natural and normal and good because it got us where we are today.
This theory is used to justify free market economies, the conduct of international relations and legal judgments. Accordingly it is natural to pursue one’s self interest and failure to do so is irrational. So, a common understanding of reason is downstream from this proposition. The implication of this theory is that anything that interferes with competitive self interest is considered unnatural and immoral. I intend to show that this view sometimes known as “Social Darwinism” is incorrect.
When you apply the word “good”; and when you use words like “is a … to …” you are misrepresenting the meaning. In the first instance you are adding a moral value laden dimension, in in the second instance you are adding a teleology.
Evolution is a consequence not a force. It is not aiming at survival and reproduction. Survival and reproduction arrive at evolution.
The evolution of life could just as easily result in our destruction.
People will justify their behaviours with any means. Free-marketeers emphasis competition but ignore co-operation. Co-operation has been equally important in “getting us where we are today”, in fact without it we sould still be hanging from tree throwing shit at other humans.
Mature consdieration of “Social Darwinism” should also include co-operation, but we live in a Neoliberal world where such things as “socialism” is now a dirty word. This is a temporary phase in history.
Hate to comment ex post facto , but theory aside, a reevaluation must be commensurate with the rapidly escalating realization of insight.
Gosh - wonderful platitude. Pretty much goes without saying… so why say it?
If not said, it may be due to oversight and insignificance.
Then lacking insight, the object of significance may be lost to any analysis
For, analysis must be transpersonal