Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: FromTheRafters <FTR@nomail.afraid.org>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Modeling the origins of life: New evidence for an 'RNA World'
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 07:41:42 -0400
Organization: Peripheral Visions
Lines: 31
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <ut40hs$2sf7r$1@dont-email.me>
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> <86y1aicto5.fsf@example.com>
Reply-To: erratic.howard@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="92381"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:99cm2SEJEc8lG0gtTr0BCs9YyrQ=
Bytes: 3567

Richmond used his keyboard to write :
> 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.

It's a misquote, or rather a misattribution.