Posted: Apr 17, 2022 7:19 am
hackenslash wrote:Spearthrower wrote:Non-random, because living organisms are competing for survival, those less competitive are eliminated and don't pass down characteristics which limited their success, while those whose genetic legacy lends survival benefit are represented statistically more frequently in successive generations. Rocks don't possess genes, Paul. None of the things you talk about possess these characteristics.
Reproductive output, because a selection process necessarily entails some benefit accrued - rocks don't accrue benefits, Paul - living organisms passing on their favoured genetic traits to future generations accrue a benefit.
Survival, which isn't just about not dying, but also about reproducing which means passing along genetic information to the next generation wherein the beneficial genetic heritage continues to confer a selective advantage. Rocks don't 'survive' or 'not survive' Paul, this would be an example of a category mistake - one of the many logical failures which both ensure your idea remains stupid, and also stops you from understanding why your idea is stupid.
Whatever else we might be able to say about Dick, this was one thing he did that has real value in my view, namely centring the notion of survival on the genes, because it focuses everything on inheritance, which removes the hostages from the equation.
Paul doesn't care about the difference between an ancestor and a precursor. With Paul, all squares are rectangles, which is OK, and all rectangles are squares, despite not all being squares, which is not OK.
In Paul-world, in some dim way, the pre-biotic world bequeathed something to the future. What it is, he don't say. I mean, the past always bequeaths something to to future, namely, possibility. That works until the possibility of impossibility is realized. What is not selected? If Paul would declare the impossible as "not selected", then he'd say where he's coming from. If he says, "Everything is possible", then nothing is selected.