Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.karotte.org!news.szaf.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Modeling the origins of life: New evidence for an 'RNA World'
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 11:17:30 +0000
Organization: Frantic
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <86y1aicto5.fsf@example.com>
References: <usjara$2pap8$1@dont-email.me> <usnel0$3nuui$1@dont-email.me>
	<86v85s8tcm.fsf@example.com> <usnn5i$3pq2k$2@dont-email.me>
	<l5ao6qF6po0U1@mid.individual.net>
	<AJednWm-tZ46kGz4nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
	<8634sqecfp.fsf@example.com>
	<1277204bc5289b66184c03f217ced23f@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="91837"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux)
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CVBpSjJwQRRUtBA+11o2efm5/ww= sha1:ZI1Dk0LC66SCzqzF9ke6oUBuAi0=
Bytes: 3487
Lines: 35

j.nobel.daggett@gmail.com (LDagget) writes:

> Richmond wrote:
>
>> John Harshman <john.harshman@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> JTEM has his own vocabulary. By "evolution" he means the modern
>>> synthesis, also called (which JTEM would detest) neoDarwinism. What he
>>> seeks to attach Darwin's name to is Lysenkoism or neoLamarckism. If
>>> you make all those switches what he says is more or less correct.
>>>
>>> Not sure whether Mao or the CCP adopted Lysenkoism, but it doesn't
>>> seem out of the question.
>>>
>
>> The phrase "survival of the fittest" has always seemed suspect to me. We
>> hear it repeated to justify capitalism. But there isn't any requirement
>> to be 'fit' as far as I can see. There is only a requirement (for genes)
>> to survive. For example the camel which sits on the calf of its rival
>> and crushes it to death, or the chimpanzee which kills and eats the
>> infant offspring of its rivals. In what way is it 'fit'? A biologist
>> would define it as merely fit to survive, but then the phrase becomes
>> redundant as survival of the survivor. And we see the same results in
>> captialism with corporations swallowing up rivals rather than competing
>> with them.
>
> You want to argue against a metaphor by considering it literally.

It's not a metaphor.


>That
> is some mix of dishonest, foolish, and stupid.

Oh please fuck off.